THE  HOUSEHOLD 
BUDGET 


THE  HOUSEHOLD 
BUDGET 

WITH  A  SPECIAL  INQUIRY 
INTO 

The  Amount  and  Value  of 
Household  Work 


JOHN  B.  LEEDS,  M.A. 

PROFESSOR  OF  ECONOMICS  AND  LECTURER  IN 

HOUSEHOLD  ECONOMICS,  TEMPLE  UNIVERSITY 

PHILADELPHIA 


Submitted  in  partial  fulfillment  of  the 
requirements  for  the  Degree  of  Doctor 
of  Philosophy,  in  the  Faculty  of 
Political  Science,  Columbia  UniveH'y 


PUBLISHED  BY 

JOHN  B.  LEEDS 

234  WEST  SCHOOL  LANE 
GERMANTOWN.  PHILADELPHIA 


- 


COPYRIGHT,  1917 
By  JOHN  B.  LEEDS 


PRINTED  BY 

INNES  &  SONS 

PHILADELPHIA 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Preface   7-8 

Vita 9-10 

Introduction 1 1-14 

CHAPTER 

I.     THE  HOUSEWIFE  AS  A  PRODUCER 15-28 

II.    AMOUNT  OF  HOUSEHOLD  WORK 29-94 

Sec.     1.     Services  a;  Factor  in  National 

Income    31-32 

Sec.    2.     The  Household  Schedule  . . .  33-34 

Sec.     3.     Type  of  Families  Scheduled. .  35-36 

Sec.     4.     Food— Purchase   37-38 

Sec.     5.     Food— Cooking 39-42 

Sec.    6.     Food — Serving    43-47 

Sec.     7.     Food — Dishwashing 48-49 

Sec.     8.     Clothing— Purchase 50 

Sec.    9.     Clothing— Making 51-52 

Sec.  10.     Clothing — Repairing 53 

Sec.  11.     Clothing — Laundry  54-55 

Sec.  12.     Clothing — Care  of   56 

Sec.  13.     House— Cleaning    57-60 

Sec.  14.     House — Care  of   61 

Sec.  15.     Children— Care  of  62-63 

Sec.  16.     Children — Oversight  64 

Sec.  17.     Management   of    the    House- 
hold    65-66 

Sec.  18.     Summary  of  Working  Hours  67-71 

Sec.  19.     Extra  Work 72 

Sec.  20.     Lost  Time  73-74 

Sec.  21.    Work  other  than  Housework  75-76 

Sec.  22.     The  Eight-Hour  Day 77-78 

Sec.  23.     Labor-Saving  Machinery   . . .  79-83 
Sec.  24.     Skill  and  Pleasure  in  House- 
hold Work 84-92 

Sec.  25.     Education   in   Household 

Science   .  93-94 


36<!687 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

III.  THE  VALUE  OF  HOUSEHOLD  WORK 95-114 

Sec.     1.     Theory  of  Value   97-103 

Sec.     2.     The  Houseworker's  Wages.  .104-109 
Sec.     3.     Value     of     the     Housewife's 

Work  110-112 

IV.  HOUSEHOLD  WORK  AS  SPECIALIZED  GAIN- 

FUL OCCUPATIONS  1 13-123 

V.     STUDENT  SERVICE  AT  COLLEGE  HALL 125-132 

VI.     BUDGETS  AND  BUDGET  MAKING 133-171 

Sec.     1.     Analysis  of  Forty  Budgets. .  .135-154 
Sec.     2.     The    Revised    Household 

Budget    155-169 

Sec.     3.     Total  Family  Income 170-171 

VII.    THE  ECONOMISTS  AND  HOUSEHOLD  PRO- 
DUCTIVE ACTIVITIES  173-212 

Sec.     1.  Xenophon   176-181 

Sec.     2.  Alberti    182-187 

Sec.     3.  Adam  Smith  188-189 

Sec.    4.  McCulloch   190-192 

Sec.     5.  Carey   193 

Sec.     6.  John  Stuart  Mill  194 

Sec.    7.  Patten 195-196 

Sec.     8.  Ely  197-198 

Sec.    9.  Marshall    199-200 

Sec.  10.  Smart   201-203 

Sec.  11.  Devine    204 

Sec.  12.  Smart    205-206 

Sec.  13.  Veblen   207 

Sec.  14.  Seligman    208 

Sec.  15.  Fisher   209 

Sec.  16.  Patten 210-211 

Sec.  17.  Conclusion    212 

Appendices   213-242 

Index  .  ..243-246 


PREFACE 

IN  bringing  to  a  close  this  work  which  has  extended 
over  nearly  ten  years  of  scholastic  preparation  and 
research,  grateful  acknowledgment  is  due  the  many  in- 
structors, students  and  friends  who  have  co-operated  to 
make  this  work  possible. 

It  was  largely  through  the  interest  of  Prof.  Carl 
Kelsey  (U.  of  P.)  and  Prof.  Henry  Raymond  Mussey 
(Columbia),  then  of  Bryn  Mawr,  that  the  author  gave 
up  a  business,  for  a  professional  career. 

The  inspiration  for  the  general  economic  philosophy 
underlying  this  work  was  drawn  from  the  years  of  de- 
lightful and  profitable  study  with  Dr.  S.  N.  Patten,  Pro- 
fessor of  Economics,  University  of  Pennsylvania.  At 
Columbia  University  the  preparation  of  this  work  has 
been  under  the  guiding  hand  of  Dr.  Edward  T.  Devine, 
Professor  of  Social  Economics,  who  has  contributed 
generously  of  his  time,  both  in  suggestions  and  in  careful 
revision  of  the  manuscript.  Dr.  Samuel  McCune  Lind- 
say has  given  helpful  suggestions  and  encouragement. 
As  an  instructor  and  original  student  in  this  same  field, 
Dr.  Benjamin  R.  Andrews,  of  Teachers  College,  gave 
interested  assistance  in  starting  this  research. 

I  am  indebted  to  the  classes  in  Household  Science, 
Temple  University  (1914  and  1915),  who  obtained  for 
me  the  budgets  herein  analyzed;  to  students  of  1916  and 
1917  who  have  made  helpful  criticisms;  to  every  house- 
wife who  contributed  to  this  work  by  filling  out  a  sched- 

7 


ule,  and  especially  to  those  who  kept  a  record  for  one 
week  of  their  household  activities. 

Finally,  the  unflagging  zeal  and  sympathetic  under- 
standing of  my  assistant,  Miss  Ruth  Kerr,  now  instructor 
in  Household  Science  at  the  Baptist  Institute,  has  light- 
ened the  burden  of  final  revision  of  the  manuscript. 

But  above  all,  this  work  would  probably  never  have 
appeared  had  it  not  been  for  the  many  sacrifices  of  my 
faithful  partner  in  the  household  firm. 

JOHN  B.  LEEDS. 


Temple  University,  Philadelphia. 
June,  1917 


VITA 

JOHN  BACON  LEEDS  was  born  December  24,  1874, 
in  Germantown,  Philadelphia,  of  Orthodox  Quaker 
parents.  His  father,  Josiah  W.  Leeds,  was  the  author 
of  a  history  of  the  United  States,  used  as  a  school  text- 
book. His  mother,  Deborah  C.  Leeds,  has  for  years 
been  an  active  worker  and  speaker  on  temperance  and 
prison  reform. 

There  are  five  children  in  the  family,  of  whom  John  B. 
Leeds  is  the  third  in  age.  He  attended  the  Friends' 
School,  in  Germantown,  then  went  to  Westtown  Board- 
ing School,  from  which  institution  he  received  a  diploma 
in  1892.  Haverford  College  granted  him  the  Bachelor 
of  Science  degree  in  1895.  On  leaving  college,  Mr. 
Leeds  started  his  business  career  in  the  Penn  National 
Bank,  Philadelphia,  but  devoted  his  after  hours  to  work 
in  the  interests  of  civic  reform  in  connection  with  the 
Municipal  League.  In  pursuance  of  further  understand- 
ing of  the  life  of  the  lowly,  Mr.  Leeds  lived  for  a  time 
in  one  of  the  buildings  of  the  College  Settlement,  at 
Seventh  and  Lombard  Streets,  and  later  in  the  home  of  a 
weaver  in  Kensington,  near  the  "Lighthouse,"  attend- 
ing labor  meetings  of  all  kinds.  He  was  present  at  the 
first  Co-operative  Convention  held  in  Lewiston,  Maine, 
and  made  a  thorough  study  of  this  movement,  both  in 
this  country  and  abroad,  including  the  merits  of  Co- 
operative Housekeeping.  At  the  Lewiston  Convention 
there  were  present  a  number  of  Socialists,  whose  influ- 
ence led  Mr.  Leeds  to  make  several  years'  intimate  study 
of  the  Socialist  movement.  Meanwhile,  Mr.  Leeds  left 


the  bank  and  went  west  to  Olympia,  Washington,  where 
he  became  the  proprietor  and  editor  of  the  "Washington 
State  Journal/'  in  conjunction  with  Mr.  Charles  Cline,  a 
former  Speaker  of  the  House  of  that  State.  This  paper 
especially  advocated  Direct  Legislation.  Returning  to 
Philadelphia,  Mr.  Leeds  married  Alice  Gary  Hay, 
daughter  of  John  Baldwin  Hay,  formerly  U.  S.  Consul  at 
Jaffa.  Upon  their  marriage  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Leeds  took 
up  their  residence  in  Moorestown,  N.  J.,  where  they  lived 
until  removing  to  Philadelphia  a  year  ago,  to  locate  near 
Temple  University. 

After  a  short  stay  with  the  Philadelphia  Saving  Fund 
Society,  Mr.  Leeds  became  assistant  receiving  teller  in 
the  Franklin  National  Bank.  While  there  he  studied 
under  Professors  Patten,  Kelsey,  Lichtenberger,  Mussey 
and  others  at  the  Wharton  School,  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania, obtaining  the  M.  A.  degree  in  1910. 

In  the  fall  of  1910,  Mr.  Leeds  entered  Columbia  Uni- 
versity, continuing  in  residence  until  the  spring  of  1912. 

Since  leaving  Columbia,  Professor  Leeds  has  held  the 
chair  of  Social  Science  at  Temple  University,  Philadel- 
phia, lecturing  on  Sociology,  Economics  and  Household 
Economics. 

Feeling  keenly  the  need  of  practical  work  as  training 
for  the  students  preparing  to  take  up  institutional  work, 
Prof.  Leeds  last  summer  assumed  the  financial  responsi- 
bility for  "College  Hall,"  a  hotel  at  Ocean  Grove,  N.  J., 
an  account  of  which  is  given  in  Chapter  V. 


10 


INTRODUCTION 

TJTOUSEHOLD  economics  is  not  a  separate  science. 
••••••   It  is  the  application  of  the  science  of  economics  to 

the  activities  of  the  household.  Economics  is  the  science 
which  deals  with  man's1  wants  and  with  the  goods  upon 
which  the  gratification  of  his  wants  depends.2  "Goods," 
as  an  economic  term,  includes  commodities  (things) 
and  services. 

The  study  of  household  economics  deals  with  all  those 
activities  of  the  housewife,  and  her  assistants  in  house- 
hold work,  which  are  concerned  with  the  production 
and  consumption  of  the  commodities  and  services,  which 
satisfy  the  wants  of  herself,  her  husband  and  children 
for  food,  clothing  and  shelter.  The  husband's  productive 
activities  are  mostly  outside  of  the  household.  Whether 
he  is  a  farmer  and  brings  food  from  the  field  or  a 
mechanic  who  brings  home  money  to  purchase  food,  in 
either  case  most  of  the  food  cannot  be  consumed  until 
further  productive  activities  have  been  expended  upon  it. 
Little  clothing  is  now  made  in  the  home,  but  no  clothing 
can  serve  its  purpose  unless  continually  re-made  for  use 
by  laundering  and  repairing.  Shelter  is  more  than  a  fur- 
nished house;  it  is  a  house  heated,  lighted  and  cleaned. 
Thus  man's  and  woman's  activities  are  essentially  of  the 
same  nature.  Both  are  spending  the  major  portion  of 
their  efforts  to  obtain  food,  clothing  and  shelter,  one 
more  directly,  the  other  often  indirectly,  as  in  the  case 
of  a  factory  worker  who  works  all  day  long  making 

1  Using  man  as  the  generic  term  for  the  human  race. 

2  Seager,    Prof.    Henry    R.,    "Principles    of    Economics,"    1913 

11 


shoes  and  exchanges  the  money  received  therefrom  for 
the  necessities  of  life. 

Apparently,  however,  no  serious  attempt  has  hereto- 
fore been  made  to  apply  the  laws  of  economics  to  house- 
hold work  as  they  have  been  applied  to  agriculture,  manu- 
facture and  mining.  Just  as  a  study  of  economics  is  now 
considered  essential  to  a  complete  understanding  of 
office  and  shop  activities  and  the  relation  of  employer 
and  employee,  so  the  same  principles  should  be  studied 
by  the  housewife  who  wishes  to  conduct  her  household 
as  an  efficient  industrial  establishment. 

Many  educational  institutions  advertise  in  their  cata- 
logues courses  in  household  economics  when  no  lectures 
in  this  science  are  given,  but  merely  lessons  in  cooking 
and  sewing,  properly  designated  as  Domestic  Science  and 
Art.  If  one  speaks  of  lessons  in  cooking  as  Household 
Economics,  one  should  refer  to  the  making  of  nails  as 
Factory  Economics,  or  the  spraying  of  trees  as  Agri- 
cultural Economics.  The  word  economics  will  better  be 
employed  as  covering  the  study  of  the  general  laws  gov- 
erning productive  activities  and  their  application  to  a 
given  field  of  labor.3 

The  points  in  the  present  work  which  are  new  contri- 
butions in  this  rapidly  developing  field  of  the  application 
of  economics  to  household  activities  and  problems  are: 

FIRST — The  current  idea  that  woman  has  changed  from 
a  producer  to  a  consumer,  is  shown  to  be  based  upon  the 
inaccurate  assumption  that  spending  the  family  income 
is  consumption.  Purchasing  commodities  is  an  act  of 
production.  Also,  the  exercise  of  choice  is  part  of  the 
productive  process;  being  rated  as  a  cost  of  production 


3  This  distinction  is  not  made  in  Maria  Parloa's  "Home  Eco- 
nomics" (1898).  Preface:  "'Home  Economics,'  'domestic  sci- 
ence,' 'domestic  economy'  and  'household  economy'  are  all  terms 
which  are  applied  to  the  same  science  (the  management  of  the 
home)." 

12 


by  all  retailers,  it  should  be  considered  an  expense  of 
production  in  the  household  budget. 

SECOND — The  failure  of  the  economic  partnership  of 
man  and  wife  is  suggested  as  a  major  cause  for  the 
break-up  of  many  families. 

THIRD — The  investigation  at  first  hand,  by  means  of  a 
schedule  filled  out  by  60  housewives,  of  the  amount  of 
time  spent  in  household  work.  This  included  the  secur- 
ing of  data  regarding: 

A. — The  different  types  of  work  carried  on  in  the 
household  and  the  time  given  to  each  kind  of  work. 

B. — The  extent  to  which  labor-saving  devices  are 
used  or  the  reasons  for  their  non-use. 

C. — The  possibility  of  an  eight-hour  day  for  the 
housewife  and  her  assistants. 

D. — The  proportion  of  housewives  who  prefer 
household  work  to  any  other  type  of  productive 
activity,  and  the  subdivision  of  household  work 
preferred. 

E. — Housewives'  estimates  of  the  money  value  of 
their  productive  activities. 

FOURTH — Forty  budgets,  with  the  average  and  the 
most  frequent  expense  under  each  heading,  are  tabulated 
and  analyzed  in  greater  detail  than  has  heretofore  been 
done  for  families  of  the  $1,800  to  $2,400  income  groups. 

FIFTH — Budget  headings  are  carefully  analyzed  and 
re-arranged.  The  expense  of  food,  clothing,  shelter  and 
advancement  is  thus  more  accurately  ascertained 
through  the  elimination  of  the  heading  "Operation,"  and 
by  the  introduction  into  the  budget  of  the  consideration 
of  the  expense  of  the  services  of  the  housewife  and  her 
assistants. 

13 


SIXTH — A  general  survey  of  works  on  economics  is 

made,  indicating  the  extent  to  which  economists  have 

neglected  heretofore  to  give  adequate  consideration  to 
productive  activities  in  the  household. 


14 


CHAPTER  I 
THE  HOUSEWIFE  AS  A  PRODUCER 


THE  HOUSEWIFE  As  A  PRODUCER 

A  FAVORITE  topic  in  recent  economic  writings  on 
•*  ^  woman  has  been  "Woman  in  Industry."  Industry 
always  refers  to  the  work  which  women  are  doing  out- 
side of  the  household.  But  has  the  work  in  the  household 
no  economic  value?  If  we  pay  two  dollars  a  day  for 
some  one  to  come  in  and  sew  for  us  or  wash  or  scrub, 
when  the  wife  and  mother  does  this  work  is  it  worth 
as  much  as  that  of  the  hired  helper,  or  more  or  less? 
And  the  care  of  children,  the  management  of  the  house- 
hold—are these  economic  production  as  is  the  making  of 
candy  in  a  factory  or  the  pounding  of  a  typewriter  in  a 
down-town  office?  Is  woman's  work  in  the  house  a  true 
trade,  industry  or  profession. 

There  is  a  common  saying  that  man  is  a  producer 
and  woman  a  consumer.  By  a  producer  we  mean  that 
man  creates  wealth.  Wealth  is  apt  to  be  thought  of  as 
signifying  money  especially.  Yet,  anything  which  is 
made  to  satisfy  human  wants  is  wealth.  But  wealth  is 
more  than  money  and  valuable  things,  it  also  includes 
services.  The  economist  says  that  production  is  "the 
creation  of  utilities  to  meet  human  desires."1  A  waiter 
brings  us  food  in  a  restaurant  or  a  car  takes  us  to  our 
daily  business  and  we  pay  for  these  services  as  well  as 
paying  for  food  and  clothing,  therefore,  they  are  wealth, 
because  they  supply  our  needs.  We  pay  a  musician  for 
the  creation  of  music,  although  it  is  not  a  tangible  "thing" 
and  fades  away  as  quickly  as  produced,  yet  because  we 


1  Seager,  Principles  of  Economics,  page  55. 

17 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

enjoy  hearing  music  we  demand  it  and  pay  liberally  to 
have  this  demand  or  desire  filled. 

"There  is  a  propriety,"  says  Dr.  Devine,  "in  assigning 
the  field  of  production  to  man  since  the  grosser  forms 
of  production,  those  things  in  fact  which  most  have 
attracted  the  attention  of  economists,  have  been  mainly 
carried  on  by  the  labor  of  man.  Production  on  a  large 
scale  has  been  in  his  hands."  "To  woman  has  fallen  the 
task  of  directing  how  the  wealth  brought  into  the  house 
shall  be  used,  whether  much  or  little  shall  be  made  of  it,2 
and  what  kind  of  wealth  shall  be  brought.  In  the  current 
theories,  the  importance  of  this  latter  function  has  been 
absurdly  underestimated/'3 

Mrs.  Charlotte  Perkins  Oilman  says:  "Speaking  col- 
lectively, men  produce  and  distribute  wealth  and  women 
receive  it  at  their  hands.  Women  consume  economic 
goods."*  Mrs.  Ellen  H.  Richards  also  takes  the  same 
view  that  women  are  primarily  consumers.  "The  home 
has  ceased  to  be  the  glowing  centre  of  production  from 
which  radiate  all  desirable  goods,  and  has  become  but  a 
pool  toward  which  products  made  in  other  places  flow — 
a  place  of  consumption,  not  of  production."5  Mrs.  Bruere, 
as  late  as  1913,  writes  in  "Increasing  Home  Efficiency," 
that  "Modern  housekeeping  has  let  go  of  production  and 
concentrated  on  consumption."  An  education  in  house- 
keeping must  be  almost  entirely  an  education  in  con- 
sumption. "From  an  all-round  producer  the  American 


"Xenophon,  in  the  fourth  century  before  Christ,  commented 
upon  this  division  of  labor.  See  page  178,  infra. 

8  Devine,  "Economic  Function  of  Woman."  A  paper  presented 
in  November,  1894,  before  the  American  Academy  of  Political 
and  Social  Science.  Reprinted  as  Teachers  College  Bulletin, 
second  series,  No.  3,  October  8,  1910. 

4  Oilman,  "Women  and  Economics,"  page  9. 

5  Richards,  "The  Cost  of  Living,"  page  23. 

18 


THE  HOUSEWIFE  AS  A  PRODUCER 

woman  has  become  the  greatest  consumer  in  the  world. 
Of  the  ten  billion  dollars  spent  annually  in  the  United 
States  for  home  maintenance,  food,  shelter  and  clothing, 
fully  90  per  cent,  is  spent  by  women.  Isn't  the  science 
of  consumption,  then,  worthy  of  special  emphasis  in  the 
training  for  home  efficiency?" 

Dr.  Scott  Nearing  says:  "Contrasted  with  the  self- 
sufficient  family  of  the  early  nineteenth  century  the  in- 
dustrial family  of  the  twentieth  century  is  dependent 
largely  on  money  income  for  its  support."  "Engaged 
in  occupations  outside  of  the  home,  the  twentieth  century 
family,  instead  of  being  a  producer  of  its  own  consump- 
tion goods,  has  become  a  consumer  of  consumption  goods 
produced  by  others."  "The  transference  of  occupations 
from  the  home  to  the  factory  converts  the  home  into  a 
buying  rather  than  a  producing  unit."6  This  is  true  of 
families  in  which  husband  and  wife  both  work  in  the 
factory  and  procure  their  meals  at  restaurants.  For  most 
families  it  would  be  more  accurate  to  describe  them  as  a 
buying  as  well  as  a  producing  unit. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  view  that  the  housewife's  activi- 
ties are  productive  is  ably  presented  by  Dr.  Devine. 

In  his  paper  on  "The  Economic  Function  of  Woman,"7 
he  says:  "It  is  not  true  that  man  alone  is  a  producer. 
Not  only  has  the  field  of  industry  and  of  professional 
life  been  occupied  and  honorably  so  by  woman,  but  also 
in  the  home  itself,  woman  may  be  said  in  the  strictest 
sense  to  be  a  producer  of  wealth.  The  work  of  cook 
and  chambermaid  is  production.  A  steak  is  worth  more 
broiled  and  placed  on  the  table  than  it  is  in  the  butcher's 


'Nearing,  "Reducing  the  Cost  of  Living,"  1914.  Chapter  III, 
Section  6.  The  title  of  Section  7  is  "The  Family  as  a  Buyer." 

1  Supra,  page  18.  ("Supra"  is  used  to  signify  a  reference  to 
a  previous  page  in  this  book;  "infra,"  to  a  later  page.) 

19 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

tray.  We  recognize  that,  if  it  is  a  question  of  paying  for 
it  in  an  eating-house;  so  should  we  also  recognize  it  in 
our  own  dining-rooms.  Rugs  and  carpets  are  worth  more 
after  they  are  swept  and  cleaned.  We  recognize  that  at 
house-cleaning  time  if  we  pay  a  man  to  carry  them  away 
for  a  beating,  so  should  we  also  recognize  it  when  with 
far  greater  labor  they  are  kept  bright  and  clean  by  the 
daily  use  of  the  broom." 

This  view  we  think  economists  must  all  eventually 
accept — that  the  woman  who  cooks  food  for  her  husband 
is  doing  as  productive  labor  as  is  the  man  who  hoes  corn, 
or  the  chef  in  a  large  hotel  who  receives  a  high  salary 
for  adding  values  to  raw  food  materials.  Cleaning  houses 
is  as  productive  of  values  as  is  the  cleaning  of  streets,  for 
which  latter  work  men  are  constantly  employed  at  wages. 
So  the  washing  of  dishes  gives  back  to  them  a  value 
which  they  lost  when  the  meal  was  eaten — for  then  they 
were  "consumed"  not  only  by  their  use,  but  by  the  fact 
that  they  became  soiled  and  so  lost  some  value  for  future 
use,  since  they  could  not  again  be  used  until  that  value 
was  restored  through  the  cleansing  process.  That  the 
washing  of  clothes  is  productive  of  values  hardly  anyone 
will  be  disposed  to  question,  since  many  housewives  have 
already  given  over  this  work  to  the  laundry.  The  direc- 
tion of  the  household  is  also  as  truly  productive  as  is 
the  management  of  a  department  store  or  an  apartment 
house,  for  it  is  the  control  of  productive  activities. 

Yet  those  economists  who  agree  that  these  kinds  of 
work  are  productive  leave  outside  other  activities  of  the 
housewife,  which  are  certainly  not  the  using-up  of  values. 

That  woman  is  pre-eminently  the  consumer  of  goods 
has  largely  been  emphasized  by  the  above  writers,  not 
because  of  her  activities  as  just  enumerated,  but  because 
she  is,  more  than  man,  a  purchaser  of  commodities 

20 


THE  HOUSEWIFE  AS  A  PRODUCER 

which  are  shortly  to  be  consumed.8  A  wife  sits  at  her 
desk  and  works  out  menus  for  the  day's  meals.  She 
then  goes  to  market,  selects  the  foods  necessary  for  her 
purposes,  carries  them  home  and  stores  away  those  which 
are  not  for  immediate  use.  Potatoes  are  peeled,  canned 
goods  opened  and  innumerable  other  processes  gone 
through  with  in  order  to  make  the  food  palatable  and 
more  readily  digestible.  As  soon  as  the  food  is  served 
upon  the  table,  the  man  and  wife  commence  their  repast. 
Now  consumption  begins.  All  the  previous  processes 
were  acts  of  production — of  creating  commodities  which 
are  now  to  be  consumed.  Jevons  says,  "By  a  commodity 
we  shall  understand  any  object,  substance,  action  or 
service  which  can  afford  pleasure  or  ward  off  pain."9 
Marshall  speaks  of  the  national  income  as  consisting  of 
"commodities,  material  and  immaterial,  including  serv- 
ices." Smart  says :  "We  should  replace  the  terms  'com- 
modities,' 'goods,'  by  the  term  'services.'  It  suggests  the 
essential  principle  of  industrial  society  as  a  great  co- 
operation of  mutual  service.  We  cannot  get  a  satisfactory 
conception  of  the  national  income  till  we  recognize  that, 
whether  we  pay  men  or  women  or  pay  for  goods,  what 
is  paid  for  is  always  service."10 

Now  let  us  see  what  were  the  services  of  the  woman 
mentioned  above: 

1.  She  decided  what  foods  were  required. 

2.  Invested  time  in  getting  them  and  bringing  them 
home  giving  them  an  added  "place"  value — they  were 
worth  more  to  her  in  her  kitchen  than  in  the  market  stall. 


*  "Women  as  Spenders"  is  the  title  of  Chapter  XX  in  "Woman 
and  Social  Progress."     Prof,  and  Mrs.  Nearing. 
9  Jevons,  W.  S.,  "Theory  of  Political  Economy,"  1874,  page  45. 
w  Smart,  Wm.,  "The  Distribution  of  Income,"  1899,  page  31. 

21 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

3.  Selected  her  goods — she  exercised  choice.  This  is 
the  science  of  marketing;  it  is  an  act  of  exchange,  not 
of  consumption.  When  the  housewife  buys  apples  and 
potatoes  she  is  no  more  a  consumer  than  is  the  retailer 
when  he  discriminatingly  buys  of  the  wholesaler.  Prof. 
Patten  has  indicated  this  when,  in  discussing  whether  the 
young  wife  of  an  unskilled  laborer  should  herself  work 
outside  of  the  home,  he  says :  "It  is  plainly  bad  economy 
to  assign  a  person  who  has  proven  capacity  to  be  a  pro- 
ducer of  world  goods  to  the  sole  task  of  spending  an 
income  so  low  that  no  choice  or  saving  can  be  made  on 
it;  it  is  adding  another  expensive  middleman  to  produc- 
tion."11 

Exactly.  The  woman  who  buys  is  another  expensive 
middleman  in  the  process  of  exchange  (a  part  of  pro- 
duction) and  an  expensive  one  when  little  choice  can  be 
made,  since  such  labor  will  then  have  a  very  low  utility, 
for  the  possibility  of  exercising  a  wise  choice  is  what 
gives  value  to  this  effort  on  the  part  of  the  woman. 

3.  She  invested  time  in  bringing  her  purchases  home, 
giving  them  an  added  "place"  value,  for  they  are  worth 
more  to  her  in  her  kitchen  than  in  the  market  stall.12 

4.  Put  away  the  provisions  not  needed  for  immediate 
use. 

5.  Prepared  the  food. 

6.  Cooked  the  food. 

7.  Set  the  table. 

8.  Served  the  meal. 

9.  After  the  meal  she  cleared  the  table. 


11  Patten,  "Independent,"  December  1,  1904.  "Young  Wives  in 
Industry." 

"Or  the  store  may  deliver  the  food  purchased.  Those  stores, 
however,  which  have  no  delivery  system  frequently  sell  their 
goods  at  a  lower  rate  on  this  account. 

22 


THE  HOUSEWIFE  AS  A  PRODUCER 

10.  Washed  the  dishes  and  put  them  away. 
Each  one  of  these  acts  was  an  act  of  production. 
At  another  time,  the  family  needs  clothing. 

1.  The  woman  looks  carefully  over  the  wardrobe  of 
her  husband,  her  children  and  herself  and  makes  a  list 
of  what  is  required. 

2.  She  spends  several  hours  in  going  down  town  to 
the  shops  where  her  purchases  are  made  and  in  moving 
about  from  shop  to  shop,  using  part  of  this  time  in  choos- 
ing wisely  (it  is  to  be  hoped)  what  is  needed  to  meet 
the  requirements  of  the  family. 

4.  She  brings  the  goods  home.13 

5.  She  tries  on  the  various  articles,  rejects  those  which 
do  not  fit  well  and  puts  away  the  accepted  garments. 

Each  one  of  these  acts  was  an  act  of  production.  Con- 
sumption does  not  begin  until  the  garments  are  put  on 
and  worn.  This  is  conclusively  shown  in  that  some  of 
the  purchased  goods  may  be  returned  as  unsatisfactory; 
they  certainly  could  not  have  been  consumed,  therefore, 
when  they  were  purchased. 

So  "shopping"  is,  after  all,  production  and  at  times  a 
very  expensive  element  in  production.  Frequently  it  is 
a  serious  question  whether  bargain  hunting  pays.  A 
woman  sees  a  great  "bargain"  in  the  papers — $5  hats 
reduced  to  $3.98.  She  drops  her  household  duties  and 
goes  for  the  hat.  The  actual  cost,  in  a  given  case,  might 
be  $3.98  plus  three  hours  time  at  30  cents  an  hour,  plus 
ten  cents  carfare,  a  total  of  $4.98.  Had  she  bought  the 
hat  when  getting  other  things  the  proportionate  cost  of 


"The  "products"  in  this  case  are  both  the  satisfaction  of 
having  the  goods  at  once  and  the  addition  of  place  value  which 
is  usually  not  a  saving  of  expense  to  the  purchaser  because  in 
most  cases  purchases  of  clothing  are  delivered  and  the  average 
expense  therefor  added  to  the  price  of  each  article. 

23 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

time  and  carfare  would  be,  say,  about  one-fourth  of  a 
dollar,  making  the  actual  cost  $5.25.  While  at  times 
there  are  real  advantages  in  purchasing  specially-priced 
goods,  yet  the  "saving"  to  the  individual  bargain-hunter 
is  often  mythical,  based  on  the  fallacy  that  a  woman's 
time  "isn't  worth  much  anyhow."  That  under  our  pres- 
ent system  of  household  industry  this  is  too  often  true 
may  be  as  much  the  fault  of  the  system  as  it  is  that  of 
the  individual  housewife. 

That  the  sale  of  articles  to  housewives  is  part  of  the 
productive  process  is  thus  stated  by  Prof.  Clark:  "An 
article  is  not  finished,  in  the  economic  sense,  till  the  retail 
merchant  has  found  the  customer  whose  need  it  satisfies. 
The  sale  of  the  completed  articles  is  thus  the  terminal 
act  of  social  production."  But  we  must  carry  this  act  a 
little  farther  and  add  that  the  terminal  act  must  include 
the  delivery  of  the  article  to  the  home  of  the  purchaser 
either  by  the  seller  or  by  the  buyer. 

The  principal  point  which  differentiates  this  theory  of 
consumption  from  the  viewpoint  of  previous  writers  on 
economics  is  the  statement  that  the  choosing  of  goods  is 
part  of  the  productive,  rather  than  of  the  consumptive, 
activities  of  men  and  women.  To  make  this  clear,  let 
us  suppose  that,  instead  of  considering  a  housewife  who 
orders  a  list  of  provisions  which  may  be  delivered  to  her 
an  hour  later,  we  are  dealing  with  a  frontiersman's 
home.  Spring  has  come.  Husband  and  wife  discuss  the 
food  wants  of  the  family  for  the  coming  year.  The  man 
then  chooses  the  required  seeds,  plows  the  ground,  plants 
the  seed,  cultivates  the  soil  and  gathers  the  harvest,  or, 
the  wife  goes  each  day  into  the  garden  and  gathers  the 
vegetables  required.  The  choosing  of  the  seed  and  the 
choosing  of  which  part  of  the  product  shall  be  served 
upon  the  table  each  day  are  both  productive  activities, 

24 


THE  HOUSEWIFE  AS  A  PRODUCER 

one  at  the  beginning,  and  the  other  toward  the  close,  of 
the  process,  the  latter  being  not  even  at  the  end,  but 
toward  the  end,  usually.  For  if  purchase  is  consumption, 
then  after  food  is  thus  consumed,  how  can  another  pro- 
ductive activity,  cooking,  be  expended  upon  it? 

So  we  finally  come  to  a  consideration  of  the  statement 
that  consumption  determines  production.  As  Fetter  has 
expressed  it:  "The  buyer  eventually  dictates  the  direc- 
tion of  industry.  Therefore,  choosing  vines  or  violets, 
pictures  or  pretzels,  each  with  his  nickel  helps  to  deter- 
mine what  shall  be  produced."14  Dr.  Devine  says : 
"Choice  logically  precedes  production.  If  an  article  is 
no  longer  chosen  by  consumers  it  is  no  longer  produced. 
The  direction  of  wealth  consumption  does  not  devolve 
entirely  upon  woman,  but  it  does  very  largely.  It  is  the 
present  duty  of  the  economist  to  magnify  the  office  of 
the  wealth  expender.  Even  if  man  remain  the  chief 
producer  and  woman  remain  the  chief  factor  in  deter- 
mining how  wealth  shall  be  used,  the  economic  position 
of  woman  will  not  be  considered  by  those  who  judge 
with  discrimination  as  inferior  to  that  of  man.  For  if 
it  falls  to  man  chiefly  to  direct  the  general  course  of 
production,  consumption  is  the  field  which  belongs  pre- 
eminently to  woman."15 

Choice  does  not  precede  production ;  it  is  a  part  of  pro- 
duction. Taking  the  country  over  a  man  eats  as  much 
as  a  woman,  wears  as  much  as  a  woman  (except  in  con- 
spicuous consumption16)  and  requires  the  shelter  of  a 
house  as  much  as  a  woman  (her  use  of  the  house  during 

14  Fetter,  "Principles  of  Economics,"  page  392. 

15  Devine,  "Economic  Function  of  Woman,"  pages  9,  10,  14,  15. 

"Veblen,  "Theory  of  the  Leisure  Class,"  Chapter  IV,  "Con- 
spicuous Consumption."  Conspicuous  consumption  refers  to  the 
wearing  of  clothing,  not  for  health  and  comfort,  but  to  show 
the  high  earning  power  of  the  wearer  or  of  her  husband. 

25 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

the  day  as  the  scene  of  her  productive  labors  is  not  "con- 
suming" the  house  merely,  but  a  "productive  utilization17 
of  it  also).  Men  and  women  are  equally  consumers  of 
wealth  produced  by  their  joint  efforts.  If  the  efforts  of 
women  are  not  rewarded  by  adding  as  large  values  to 
the  national  wealth  as  do  those  of  men,  it  may  be  the  fault 
of  the  system,  quite  as  much  as,  or  more  than,  that  of  the 
women.  The  work  of  men  has  largely  become  specialized 
by  the  division  of  labor;  to  make  that  of  women  most 
effective,  it  also  must  be  increasingly  specialized;  cook- 
ing is  as  much  a  profession  for  a  specialist  as  is  laundry 
work  or  tailoring. 

We  utterly  disagree,  therefore,  with  the  view  that, 
"Although  not  producers  of  wealth,  women  serve  in  the 
final  processes  of  preparation  and  distribution.  Their 
labor  in  the  household  has  a  genuine  economic  value. 
For  a  certain  percentage  of  persons  to  serve  other  per- 
sons, in  order  that  the  others  so  served  may  produce 
more,  is  a  contribution  not  to  be  overlooked.  The  labor 
of  women  in  the  house,  certainly,  enables  men  to  pro- 
duce more  wealth  than  they  otherwise  could ;  and  in  this 
way  women  are  economic  factors  in  society."18 

This  idea  of  vicarious  production — that  what  women 
are  doing  is  not  really  of  economic  value,  except  as  it 
increases  the  opportunities  of  the  real  doers  of  deeds  to 
do  them — is  partly,  if  not  largely,  responsible  for  the 
continuance  of  the  belief  that  the  work  of  housewives 
and  houseworkers  is  not  of  as  great  worth  as  is  that  of 
men. 


"  Seager,  "Principles  of  Economics."  The  use  of  goods,  such 
as  coal  in  a  factory,  as  a  part  of  the  productive  process.  Also 
called  "productive  consumption." 

"Oilman,  C.  P.,  "Women  and  Economics,"  page  13. 

26 


THE  HOUSEWIFE  AS  A  PRODUCER 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  after  a  careful  examination  of 
this  subject,  economists  will  increasingly  realize  that  the 
activities  of  a  housewife  are  essentially  productive.  To 
what  extent  she  produces  wealth  and  what  is  the  value 
of  her  productive  efforts  will  be  the  subjects  of  succeed- 
ing chapters. 


27 


CHAPTER  II 
AMOUNT  OF  HOUSEHOLD  WORK 


SECTION  I 
SERVICES  A  FACTOR  IN  NATIONAL  INCOME 

HAVING  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  household 
work  is  productive  of  wealth,  in  that  services  are 
rendered  which  fill  wants  of  men  and  women,  the  next 
step  will  be  to  consider  the  amount  of  this  addition  to 
the  national  income. 

That  "national  income  is  a  better  measure  of  general 
economic  prosperity  than  national  wealth,"  is  the  view  of 
the  distinguished  English  economist,  Prof.  Marshall.1 
He  says:  "The  labor  and  capital  of  the  country,  acting 
on  its  natural  resources,  produce  annually,  a  certain  net 
aggregate  of  commodities,  material  and  immaterial, 
including  services  of  all  kinds."  "It  is  a  continuous 
stream  always  flowing,  and  not  a  reservoir  or  store  or 
fund."2 

Smart  says:  "If  we  speak,  then,  of  the  national  in- 
come as  a  sum  of  services,  embodied  in  material  forms 
or  not  embodied,  we  seem  to  get  an  expression  equally 
applicable  whether  we  conceive  of  it  as  a  sum  of  goods 
which  minister  to  the  wants  and  activities  of  man's  life 
or  calculate  it  as  a  sum  of  services"3 

The  services  of  workers  who  toil  in  mill,  mine  and 
factory,  or  on  the  farm,  and  of  capitalists,  are  valued 
either  in  the  total  amount  of  wages,  rent,  interest  and 
profits  paid  for  their  services,  or  in  the  market  value  of 


1  Marshall,  "Principles  of  Economics,"  1898  Ed.,  page  151. 

2  Marshall,  page  594. 

3  Smart,  "Distribution  of  Income,"  1899  Ed.,  page  33. 

31 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

the  total  commodities  produced.  Probably  the  total 
income  represents  more  nearly  the  addition  to  wealth 
during  the  year,  since  many  services,  such  as  those  of 
lawyers,  doctors,  teachers  and  houseworkers,  do  not 
embody  themselves  directly  in  commodities. 

The  situation  is  thus  clearly  stated  by  Prof.  Smart: 
"This  national  income,  represented  and  paid  by  the  money 
income,  does  not  exhaust  the  wealth  that  accrues 
periodically  to  the  nation.  In  the  modern  State  the 
unpaid  services  attain  great  dimensions.  The  greatest 
unpaid  service  of  all  is  that  of  women  in  the  household. 
What  this  income  really  amounts  to  may  be  guessed  if  we 
imagine  what  we  should  have  to  pay  to  servants  for 
doing  work  now  done  by  the  wives,  sisters  and  daugh- 
ters, and  how  entirely  impossible  it  would  be  to  get 
similar  work  done  for  money.  [  ?]  If  such  women  went 
to  the  factory  or  into  professional  life,  we  should  have 
to  withdraw  probably  a  much  greater  number  from  the 
factory  or  professions  to  take  their  place,  and  should  lose 
something  with  it  all."4 

While  we  thus  find  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  there 
is  a  large  amount  of  wealth  produced  by  services  ren- 
dered in  the  household,  no  serious  attempt  has  heretofore 
been  made  to  obtain  information  regarding  the  amount  of 
this  work.  It  might  be  approximately  calculated  if  the 
United  States  Census  would  include  in  its  questions  the 
query  to  all  women  not  engaged  in  what  has  heretofore 
been  recognized  as  "gainful  occupations,"  "How  many 
hours  on  the  average  each  day  of  the  year  are  you 
engaged  in  household  work?" 


4  Smart,  "Distribution  of  Income,"  1899  Ed.,  pages  68-70. 

32 


SECTION  II 
THE  HOUSEHOLD  SCHEDULE 

IN  order  to  ascertain  just  what  are  the  activities  within 
the  household  which  have  an  economic  value  as  pro- 
ductive work,  and  the  attitude  of  housewives  toward 
these  activities,  a  household  schedule  of  forty-one  ques- 
tions (Appendix  A)  was  prepared  and  several  hundred 
were  sent  out  by  mail.  Although  these  were  sent  to 
persons  who  there  was  reason  to  believe  were  interested 
in  household  economics,  a  very  small  percentage  were 
returned  filled  out.  Most  of  the  eighty  replies  to  the 
schedules  were  obtained  by  personal  interviews  or 
through  students  who  interviewed  parents  or  friends. 
Of  the  eighty,  fifteen  were  so  defective  as  to  make  their 
use  undesirable.  Five  were  from  families  living  in 
apartment  houses  and  were  not  used.  Of  the  remaining 
sixty  the  answers  are  based  upon  "estimates"  of  the 
housewife,5  except  in  the  case  of  twelve  who  also  kept 
an  actual  record  of  the  amount  of  housework  done  as 
explained  in  Section  41  of  the  schedule. 

While  at  first  thought  one  would  be  likely  to  say  that 
actual  records  are  of  much  greater  value  than  estimates, 


6  The  function  of  a  wife  is  to  be  the  mother  of  children  and 
the  companion  of  her  husband.  Nevertheless,  after  marriage  it 
is  generally  assumed  that  the  wife  will  do  the  housework,  in 
which  case  she  becomes  the  housewife.  She  may  be  wife  without 
being  housewife,  but  she  is  not  housewife  without  being  wife, 
in  name  at  least.  If  she  bears  no  children  and  all  love  and 
companionship  have  ceased  then  she  tends  to  become  a  household 
drudge,  although  it  is  possible  for  her  to  enjoy  household  work 
and  yet  rebel  at  the  conditions  on  which  her  product  is  sold. 
(See  page  102,  et  seq.) 

33 


-ZCTION  m 

TYPES  OF  FAMILIES  SCHEDULED 


M 


0. 

Twenty-six  of  the 
under  ten  years  of  age ; 
and  nine  had  three  such 

^yy  ijiM>if^^  had  older  **"f™f F Bf^i  ^»w^     Tnere 
famines  m  which  au  the  cfafldren  were  ore 
of  age;  eight  of  them  had  only  one  chid;  five  had  two: 
ten  had  three ;  six  had  four; 

^»^_     j    |j  __*   ^« 

tne  cnMoren  01  an 

AS  ::'.".; \vs  : 

35^  «£  Fa 

0  ^ 

1  11 

9 

3  S 

4  11 
5 

r 

>  1 


.v 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

The  average  is  2^  children  per  family.  The  families 
having  three  children  are  the  most  numerous. 

The  annual  budget  asked  for  in  Query  27  included 
only  food,  clothing,  shelter  and  operation,  and  did  not 
include  "personal"  expenses.  These  partial  budgets  run 
from  $700  to  $3,750.  The  average  budget  is  $1,575 ;  the 
median,  $1,425.  The  most  frequent  is  $1,300,  that  being 
the  budget  of  six  families. 

Sixteen  housewives  have  husbands  engaged  in  a  "pro- 
fessional occupation" ;  thirteen  were  married  to  "business 
men" ;  ten  to  "skilled  laborers" ;  seven  to  "clerical  work- 
ers" ;  seven  reported  no  husband ;  four  gave  no  informa- 
tion; three  reported  "farmers"  as  the  breadwinner. 

Nearly  all  the  families  reside  in  the  State  of  Pennsyl- 
vania ;  ten  in  Philadelphia,  ten  in  some  other  city,  twenty- 
three  in  towns,  six  in  suburbs,  six  in  villages  and  five  in 
the  country. 

Eighteen  housewives  report  that  they  spent  their  youth 
in  a  city,  nine  in  a  town,  four  in  suburbs,  six  in  a  village 
and  twenty-two  in  the  country.  It  is  interesting  to  note 
that  while  over  a  quarter  of  the  housewives  were  raised 
in  the  country  only  a  twelfth  of  them  reside  there  now. 

The  information  given  in  the  schedules  was  obtained 
during  the  years  1912-1914.  The  most  important  original 
material  secured  was  embodied  in  the  answers  to  Section 
15  of  the  schedule,  in  which  housewives  were  asked  to 
state  the  number  of  hours'  work  done  by  all  members  of 
the  household  in  each  line  of  household  work  during  an 
average  week;  in  addition  information  was  sought 
regarding  the  skill  and  pleasure  of  housewives  and 
houseworkers  in  their  varied  activities.  (See  Appendix 
A.) 


36 


SECTION  IV 
FOOD — PURCHASE 

THE  average  time  spent  in  buying  food,  as  recorded 
in  these  schedules,  was  about  four  hours  a  week. 
It  varied  from  one-half  hour  to  eleven  hours  per  week. 
The  most  frequent  time  recorded  was  two  hours,  which 
was  given  in  sixteen  schedules;  three  in  fourteen,  and 
four  in  fourteen;  less  frequent  were  five  hours  in  five 
schedules,  six  in  seven  and  seven  in  six.  (Item  A,  p.  67.) 
Two  hours  would  be  twenty  minutes  daily  for  six  days ; 
three  hours  would  be  thirty  minutes;  four  hours,  forty 
minutes. 

Food  purchase  in  this  inquiry  includes  time  spent  in 
the  planning  of  meals,  deciding  what  to  buy,  telephoning 
orders,  interviewing  salesmen  from  stores,  marketing, 
checking  off  purchases  when  they  arrive  and  putting 
goods  away. 

If  a  housewife's  time  were  of  no,  or  very  little,  value, 
then  the  popular  view  would  be  correct  and  marketing 
might  well  be  a  daily  vocation  of  women.  It  is  because 
time  values  are  so  generally  ignored  or  underestimated 
that  much  foolish  advice  is  given  along  this  line.  On  the 
average  probably  five  minutes'  use  of  the  telephone  will 
accomplish  as  much  as  a  half  hour  spent  in  visiting  the 
store,  with  a  saving  of  twenty-five  minutes'  time  over 
against  an  occasional  bargain  missed.  Where  the  house- 
wife firmly  insists  on  the  return  of  all  goods  delivered 
which  are  not  of  the  grade  represented  or  desired,  she 
soon  finds  that  she  can  buy  without  leaving  her  home  to 
very  nearly  as  good  advantage  as  by  marketing. 

37 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

A  few  years  ago  the  editor  of  a  widely-read  woman's 
magazine,7  in  a  leading  editorial,  asked  reproachfully  if 
the  American  housewife  knows  whether  or  not  the  food 
she  buys  is  pure,  and  if  she  knows  whether  or  not  she 
is  getting  full  measure.  One  is  forced  to  the  conclusion 
that  such  a  writer  never  made  up  a  daily  schedule  of 
housework,  not  to  mention  trying  to  live  up  to  it.  That 
editor  believes  it  to  be  the  duty  of  a  woman  to  bear  and 
raise  children,  and  he  probably  is  aware  of  the  fact  that 
a  servant  is  a  luxury  to  be  enjoyed  by  the  few  only.  The 
average  woman  ought  not  to  be  expected  to  stop  her 
housework  to  give  a  chemical  test  of  the  food  she  pur- 
chases daily  nor  even  stop  to  weigh  each  package.  A 
considerable  amount  of  time  would  be  saved  and  better 
results  would  be  obtained  if  there  were  efficient,  trained 
food  inspectors  for  every  thousand  housewives  (about 
300  for  the  city  of  Philadelphia).  We  might,  however, 
wisely  charge  off  against  food  purchase  an  occasional 
hour  spent  in  agitation  for  proper  food  inspection. 


7  Ladies'  Home  Journal,  October,  1913. 

38 


SECTION  V 
FOOD — COOKING 

THE  time  recorded  for  the  preparation  and  cooking 
of  food  is  fourteen  hours  for  twelve  families; 
twenty  for  six;  twenty-one  for  seven;  twenty-two  for 
five ;  twenty-four  for  eight,  and  each  hour  from  eight  to 
thirty-one  (except  above  mentioned)  is  given  by  one  or 
two  families  as  the  time  required.  One  family  allows 
forty-five  hours,  which  is  large  for  a  private  family, 
except  where  two  houseworkers  are  employed.  Twenty- 
one  hours  is  the  average  time  weekly;  the  most  frequent 
allowance  of  time  is  fourteen  hours  weekly.  (Item  B, 
p.  67.) 

Query  11  asks:  "Do  you  cook  with  wood,  coal,  gas, 
oil,  alcohol  or  electricity?"  The  replies  are:  Coal  and 
gas,  twenty-one ;  gas,  eighteen ;  coal  and  wood,  nine ;  coal, 
six ;  coal  and  oil,  two ;  gas  and  electricity,  one ;  gas,  elec- 
tricity, coal  and  alcohol,  one ;  gas  and  oil,  one ;  wood  and 
oil,  one.  The  next  part  of  the  query  refers  to  an  eco- 
nomic activity:  "If  you  use  coal  or  wood,  who  carries 
the  fuel  from  cellar  to  kitchen  stove  ?"  The  replies  are : 
Husband  in  fifteen  families;  husband  and  housewife, 
one;  husband  and  son,  one;  husband  and  houseworker, 
one;  housewife,  four;  housewife  and  daughter,  two; 
daughter,  one ;  son,  ten ;  houseworker,  four ;  hired  man, 
one. 

Whether  time  for  this  work  was  included  by  house- 
wives in  making  up  their  schedules  cannot  definitely  be 
stated.  Its  importance  as  productive  labor  lies  not  so 

39 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

much,  however,  in  the  number  of  minutes  consumed  daily 
as  in  the  strain  such  labor  often  gives  to  an  overburdened 
or  weak  worker.  This,  with  the  care  of  the  furnace,  is 
one  of  the  "costs"8  of  housework  which  some  housewives 
and  husbands  are  glad  to  have  eliminated  by  the  use  of 
gas  for  cooking,  and  a  central  heating  plant. 

The  time  required  for  cooking  will  vary  greatly  with  the 
nature  of  the  meals  served;  therefore  Query  19  asks 
housewives  to  give  an  average  day's  menu.  The  answers 
are  interesting,  but  not  sufficiently  accurate  to  be  of 
value.  Many  did  not  mention  soup  or  salads,  and  a  few 
omitted  dessert;  forty  families  served  eggs  or  meat  for 
breakfast,  so  the  cereal  and  fruit  breakfast,  popular  with 
dietitians,  satisfied  only  the  minority  in  this  group.  Cof- 
fee and  tea  are  mentioned  three  times  as  often  as  milk. 
One  vegetarian  family  of  two  made  a  careful  record  and 
found  that  for  the  week  recorded  only  eight  hours  was 
spent  in  cooking,  an  average  of  fifteen  minutes  for  break- 
fast, twenty  for  lunch  and  thirty-five  for  dinner. 

Baking  adds  appreciably  to  the  time  required  for  cook- 
ing, so  Query  20  asks:  "Do  you  make  bread?  Rolls? 
Cake?  Pie?"  Twenty-three  families  make  bread,  five 
of  them  making  all  they  use,  while  thirty-seven  families 
make  no  bread.  Twenty-eight  families  make  rolls. 
Home-made  cake  is  customary  in  fifty-three  families. 
Fifty  prefer  home-made  pies.  Thus  while  bakers  or 
grocerymen  have  captured  60  per  cent,  of  the  bread- 
making  in  this  group  and  nearly  half  of  the  families  pur- 
chase rolls,  pie  and  cake  are  still  produced  by  most  of  the 
housewives  or  by  their  assistants. 


'"Costs,"  as  distinguished  from  "expenses,"  of  production  are 
the  efforts  and  sacrifices  of  producers,  whereas  "expenses"  refer 
to  what  is  paid  for  articles  when  purchased.  Seager,  "Principles 
of  Economics,"  page  58. 

40 


FOOD— COOKING 

Butter-making  is  practically  a  lost  art  to  the  city  house- 
wife. Only  six  schedules  report  butter-making;  these 
are  from  country  homes,  except  one  from  a  city-bred 
woman  who  makes  butter  "not  because  it  is  cheaper,  but 
I  like  it  better." 

Preserving  is  not  yet  a  lost  art  for  the  majority  of 
housewives.  It  is  a  work  which  is  seasonal  in  nature 
and  therefore  likely  to  be  overlooked  in  making  up  a 
record  of  housework  unless  a  special  request  for  infor- 
mation be  made.  For  this  reason  Query  20  asks:  "Do 
you  put  up  fruits  and  vegetables?  If  so,  specify  amount 
annually  of  jams,  jellies,  preserves,  canned  fruits  and 
vegetables,  grape  juice,  etc."  Only  three  families  stated 
that  they  did  no  preserving  at  all ;  one  put  up  only  grape 
juice.  In  order  to  reduce  the  amount  to  a  common 
denominator,  four  jelly  glasses,  or  two  pickle  bottles,  are 
reckoned  as  holding  one  quart.  Twenty-seven  families 
each  canned  between  thirty-five  and  100  quarts ;  sixteen 
recorded  from  100  to  200  quarts;  one  family  reported 
only  six  quarts,  while  the  product  of  one  family's  labor 
totaled  290  quarts.  These  forty-five  families  canned  an 
average  of  forty-nine  quarts  of  fruits.  Only  thirty-two 
families  report  canning  vegetables,  with  an  average  of 
twenty-one  quarts  per  family.  Forty-five  families  made 
an  average  of  sixteen  quarts  of  jellies  and  jams. 
Twenty-one  families  averaged  eleven  quarts  of  preserves. 
Twenty-six  families  averaged  eight  quarts  of  beverages 
in  the  form  of  grape-juice,  raspberry  vinegar,  or  black- 
berry wine.  Only  thirteen  families  put  up  pickles  and 
catsups;  these  average  eleven  quarts  per  family.  One 
mention  only  of  elderberry  wine  and  one  of  brandied 
cherries  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  term  "brewster" 
does  not  apply  to  the  modern  American  housewife  as  it 

41 


.     THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

did  a  hundred  years   ago  to  her  English   or   Colonial 
ancestor. 

The  time  required  for  this  work  was  not  recorded,  but 
even  a  casual  observer  is  aware  of  the  difference  in  time 
required  to  put  up  a  quart  of  plums,  where  the  fruit  is 
simply  washed  and  put  into  the  jars  to  be  sterilized,  and 
apple  sauce,  which  requires  many  hours  for  paring  the 
fruit  or  putting  it  through  a  colander.  Probably  part  of 
this  time  is  taken  from  the  housewife's  leisure  hours  and 
part  is  gotten  by  leaving  some  of  the  dusting,  or  other 
household  labors,  undone. 


42 


SECTION  VI 
FOOD — SERVING 

SERVING  is  the  work  performed  by  a  waitress.  It 
includes  setting  the  table,  placing  food  upon  the  table 
and  clearing  the  table  after  the  meal ;  it  may  or  may  not 
include  passing  food  to  those  seated  at  the  table  during 
the  mealtime.  The  time  allowed  for  serving  is  as 
follows : 

Hours  per  Week  No.  of  Families 

5  5 

6  4 

7  7 

8  5 

9  6 

10  11 

11  4 
14  6 

There  were  a  few  families  reporting  various  lengths 
of  time  up  to  thirty  hours. 

The  time  spent  in  serving  meals  will  depend  upon  the 
quickness  of  the  worker,  the  number  of  foods  served, 
whether  food  is  served  in  courses  or  all  is  placed  upon 
the  table  at  once,  and  upon  the  size  of  the  family.  To 
reduce  all  these  factors  to  exact  terms  would  require  a 
special  study.  Taking  the  figures  as  given  in  the  sched- 
ules we  find  that  nine  hours  a  week  is  approximately  the 
average  time.  The  most  frequent  is  ten  hours.  (Item 
C,  p.  67.) 

An  important  factor  in  the  efficient  preparing  and  serv- 
ing of  food  is  the  arrangement  of  the  kitchen  and  dining- 
room  and  their  equipment  so  as  to  facilitate  carrying  on 

43 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

these  operations  without  unnecessary  steps.  Query  8 
asks:  "How  many  steps  from  stove  to  sink?  From 
stove  to  work-table  in  kitchen?  From  stove  to  dining- 
room  table  ?"  The  replies  are : 


No.  of 

Stove  to 

Work  Table 

Stove  to 

Steps 

Sink 

to  Sink 

Dining  Table 

1 

7 

6 

0 

2 

10 

13 

0 

3 

16* 

13* 

0 

4 

11 

13 

1 

5 

4 

8 

1 

6 

2 

3 

7 

7 

1 

1 

3 

8 

3 

2 

8 

9 

1 

0 

7 

10 

11 

11 

3 

12 

12* 

13 

1 

14 

2 

Average 

no.  steps 

3.5 

3.5 

10 

and  in  the  last  column  one  family  each  allows  16,  17,  20  and 
24  steps. 

The  most  frequent  number  of  steps  mentioned  in  each 
column  is  3,  3  and  12  (starred  in  above  table),  which  is 
not  far  from  the  average. 

From  the  above  tabulation  it  appears  that  nearly  all 
the  families  had  a  fairly  compact  arrangement.  That 
both  time  and  energy  are  needlessly  wasted  by  lack  of 
compactness  in  culinary  arrangements  is  the  opinion  of 
those  modern  housebuilders  who  are  making  small 
kitchens  in  large  homes,  especially  since  the  all-gas 
kitchen  (heated  from  the  furnace)  has  eliminated  the 
heat-radiating  coal  range  which  made  a  larger  room 
desirable.9 


"Frederick,  Mrs.  Christine,  "The  New  Housekeeping."  See 
diagram  facing  page  52  for  suggested  arrangement  of  kitchen 
equipment. 

44 


FOOD— SERVING 

As  stated  above,  serving  may  or  may  not  include  wait- 
ing on  table.  Query  21  of  the  Household  Schedule  asks : 
"When  food  is  served,  is  it  placed  upon  the  table  and 
passed  around  by  those  at  the  table,  or  is  it  passed  by  a 
waitress  ?  Which  method  do  you  prefer,  and  why  ?"  Of 
those  who  answered,  fifty-one  families  pass  food  at  the 
table;  four  have  food  passed  by  a  waitress;  one  has  a 
daughter  act  as  waitress ;  one  answers  "both" ;  one  house- 
wife dishes  food  from  the  pots  on  the  stove  directly  upon 
the  individual  plates.  No  waitress  is  preferred  by  thirty- 
nine  families;  reasons  mentioned  are:  "only  way  when 
there  is  no  waitress" ;  "saves  expense" ;  "more  privacy" ; 
"too  much  formality  when  one  has  waitress";  "saves 
time";  "saves  labor";  "easier  for  housekeeper  when  she 
has  no  helper";  "greater  freedom";  "when  family  are 
alone  together  they  understand  each  other  better";  "the 
one  opportunity  family  has  together";  "do  not  eat  so 
fast  if  talk  while  eating" ;  "relieves  girl  of  extra  work" ; 
"teaches  children  to  help  with  serving" ;  "more  intimate 
and  homelike";  "do  not  have  to  wait  so  long  to  be 
served" ;  "habit." 

A  waitress  is  preferred  by  fifteen  families,  who  give 
as  reasons:  "more  orderly";  "less  work  for  those  at 
table" ;  "saves  crowding  of  dishes  on  table" ;  "keeps  food 
hot";  "induces  deliberate  and  careful  eating  to  have 
waitress";  "better  form  to  have  waitress";  "good  train- 
ing for  children  to  have  waitress";  "dislike  sight  of  all 
food  on  table  at  once";  "saving  of  labor";  (this,  of 
course,  means  a  saving  of  the  housewife's  time ;  there  is 
no  actual  saving  but  an  increase  of  labor). 

In  some  families  there  is  great  irregularity  regarding 
the  time  of  eating  meals,  breakfast  particularly,  and 
therefore  annncrease  in  serving  time.  One  family  reports 
that  at  breakfast-time  each  person  serves  himself  or  her- 

45 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

self  from  the  stove  at  whatever  time  is  convenient.  Query 
22  asks:  "About  how  much  time  is  lost  each  week  by 
those  preparing  and  serving  meals  through  the  irregu- 
larity of  any  members  of  the  household  in  being  late  at 
meals  ?"  None,  was  the  answer  of  nineteen  families ; 
little,  four;  one-half  hour,  three;  three-quarters  hour, 
one ;  one  hour,  six ;  one  and  one-half  hours,  two ;  two 
hours,  six ;  three  hours,  two ;  four  hours,  five ;  five  hours, 
four ;  seven  hours,  one ;  ten  hours,  one ;  a  great  deal,  one. 
Thirty-one  families  who  reported  time  lost  give  a  total  of 
eighty-one  hours  per  week,  or  an  average  of  about  two 
and  one-half  hours  per  family.  The  most  frequent  time 
is  one  hour  and  two  hours,  mentioned  by  six  families 
each. 

One  more  factor  must  be  considered  regarding  the 
serving  of  meals,  and  that  is  the  addition  of  time  due 
to  the  entertainment  of  guests.  Query  24  asks:  "How 
much  company  do  you  entertain  at  meals  on  the  average 
each  week?  Is  extra  assistance  usually  secured  on  such 
occasions?  If  so,  how  much?"  The  answers  are  given 
in  such  a  manner  that  it  is  usually  impossible  to  tell 
whether,  when  "four  persons"  is  given  it  means  four 
persons  at  one  time  or  two  on  two  occasions  or  one  four 
times,  yet  it  would  make  considerable  difference  in  esti- 
mating the  time  required  in  serving  meals.  Several 
housekeepers  state  that  the  maximum  of  entertaining 
for  the  minimum  of  extra  work  is  to  have  four  guests 
at  one  time.  Preparations  for  four  require  not  much 
more  effort  than  for  two,  but  if  six  are  invited,  the 
houseworker  is  likely  to  ask  for  an  extra  assistant. 

An  average  of  one  person  weekly  is  reported  as  being 
entertained  by  thirteen  families;  two  persons  by  four- 
teen; three,  by  thirteen;  four,  by  five;  five,  by  three; 
six,  by  three ;  ten,  by  two. 

46 


FOOD— SERVING 

Forty-eight  families  report  that  no  extra  help  is  secured 
to  assist  in  preparing  meals  for  company,  four  of  them 
stating  that  "the  family  help."  Twelve  secure  extra  help, 
seven  of  them  only  "sometimes"  for  "parties." 


47 


SECTION  VII 
FOOD — DISHWASHING 

r  I  ^HE  time  required  for  washing  dishes,  pots  and  pans 
-»•  and  clearing  up  the  kitchen,  varies  from  three  to 
twenty-one  hours,  with  one  family  recording  twenty-eight 
hours.  (This  family  has  two  young  women  assisting 
the  housewife.)  Seven  hours  is  the  time  recorded  by 
seven  families;  eight,  by  five;  nine,  by  seven;  ten,  by 
nine;  eleven,  by  five;  twelve,  by  six;  fourteen,  by  six; 
a  few  give  more  or  less  time.  Ten  hours  is  about  the 
average,  and  also  the  most  frequent.  (Item  D,  p.  67.) 

Many  housewives  continue  the  custom  of  wiping  all 
dishes  and  food  utensils  after  they  are  washed.  Wiping 
the  glassware  and  cutlery  is,  of  course,  desirable,  but  if 
the  dishes  are  thoroughly  washed  in  very  hot  soapy 
water,  rinsed  in  clear  hot  water  and  placed  upon  a  rack, 
they  will  quickly  dry  and  look  quite  well.  Moreover, 
wiping  dishes,  instead  of  being  credited  as  productive 
labor  because  it  gives  increased  sanitary  values  through 
greater  cleanliness,  really  has  the  opposite  effect.  A  plate 
which  has  been  soiled  by  use  at  table  has  not  as  much 
value  as  one  which  is  clean,  because  it  is  useless  and 
therefore  practically  valueless  as  it  is.  By  washing,  it 
is  again  made  of  value,  and  thus  it  is  continually  losing 
and  acquiring  value.  Its  highest  value  is  just  after  it 
emerges  from  the  water,  as  then  it  is  most  sanitary.  The 
more  a  dish  is  handled  and  smeared  over  with  a  cloth, 
the  less  sanitary  it  becomes.  This  is  proved  by  the  fact 
that  if  the  top  of  a  preserve  jar,  after  it  has  been  removed 

48 


FOOD— DISHWASHING 

from  the  hot  water  in  which  it  is  sterilized,  is  touched 
on  the  inside,  the  fruit  in  that  jar  is  likely  to  spoil. 

A  saving  of  time  and  expense  for  laundering  is  made 
by  housewives  who  substitute  doilies  for  a  tablecloth, 
except  for  formal  dinners. 


49 


SECTION  VIII 
CLOTHING — PURCHASE 

THE  answers  in  Section  XV  of  the  Schedule,  to  ques- 
tions regarding  clothing,  show  that  eight  families 
record  no  time  as  being  given  to  the  purchase  of  clothing. 
This  is  due  to  an  oversight,  for  even  though  ready-made 
garments  are  not  purchased,  the  materials  would  have  to 
be  bought.  A  half -hour  each  week  is  the  average  given 
by  four  families ;  one  hour,  by  ten ;  two,  by  twelve ;  two 
and  one-half,  by  four ;  three,  by  nine ;  four,  by  eight ; 
five,  five  and  one-half,  eight,  ten  and  twelve  by  one 
family  each.  Two  and  a  half  hours  is  the  average  time, 
and  two  hours  the  most  frequent.  (Item  E,  p.  67.) 
Much  time  idled  away  in  so-called  "shopping,"  if  con  • 
sidered  in  the  light  of  diversion  is  no  more  wasteful  of 
one's  leisure  time  than  is  card-playing  or  gossiping,  but 
if  considered  from  the  standpoint  of  using  up  time 
needed  for  productive  work,  must  be  regarded  as  an 
extravagance  which  many  who  indulge  in  this  custom 
can  ill  afford. 


50 


SECTION  IX 
CLOTHING — MAKING 

FIFTEEN  (one-quarter)  of  the  families  make  no 
clothing  in  the  home.  Two  hours  weekly  is  given 
up  to  this  occupation  by  seven  families ;  three,  by  eight ; 
from  four  up  to  twelve  hours  by  two  to  three  families 
each,  and  one  family  each  spends  fourteen,  fifteen, 
eighteen,  nineteen,  twenty-four  and  thirty  hours.  The 
last  record  is  by  the  family  having  two  assistants.  The 
average  time  expended  is  five  and  three-fourths  hours 
weekly;  two  to  three  hours  is  the  time  most  frequently 
mentioned.  (Item  F,  p.  67.) 

Query  25  asks  whether  clothing  is  bought  ready-made, 
made  to  order  outside  of  the  house,  made  at  home  by  a 
seamstress,  or  made  at  home  by  members  of  the  family 
including  the  houseworker.  Fifty  of  the  families  buy 
all  or  most  of  their  clothing  ready-made ;  all  buy  more 
than  half  ready-made ;  none  make  all  at  home ;  eleven 
make  none  at  home  by  members  of  the  family.  That 
the  making  of  clothing  at  home  is  still  customary,  is  evi- 
denced by  the  fact  that  over  one-half  of  the  families 
record  that  they  make  more  than  "a  few"  garments  at 
home. 

The  garments  mentioned  as  being  made  at  home  most 
frequently  are  dresses,  shirtwaists,  petticoats,  skirts,  hats 
and  nightrobes.  No  longer  does  mother  sit  with  her 
knitting-needles  and  knit  stockings  as  grandmother  did, 
for  not  a  single  family  reports  home-made  stockings. 
Ties,  handkerchiefs  and  underwear  are  made  by  only  a 

51 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

few  families.10  Only  a  dozen  families  report  having  a 
seamstress  come  to  the  house  to  make  clothing,  and 
when  engaged  her  work  is  mostly  to  make  dresses  and 
skirts.  The  clothing  made  to  order  is  usually  women's 
hats  and  men's  suits,  while  half  a  dozen  women  have 
tailor-made  dresses. 


"Since  the  outbreak  of  the  war  in  August,  1914,  there  has 
been  an  interesting  reversion  to  the  ways  of  our  grandmothers ! 

52 


SECTION  X 
CLOTHING — REPAIRING 

The  time  allowed  for  the  repairing  of  clothing  is  as 
follows : 

Hours  per  Week  No.  of  Families 

0  3 

i* 

¥  & 

3  10 

4  5 

5  3 

6  5 

7  5 

One  or  two  families  allow  eight,  ten,  eleven,  fourteen, 
fifteen,  sixteen  and  eighteen  hours.  Two  and  three  hours 
is  the  more  usual  time  estimated,  while  four  hours  is 
about  the  average.  (Item  G,  p.  67.)  Three  families 
allow  no  time  for  mending  clothes.  This  may  be  an  over- 
sight in  filling  out  the  schedule,  or  all  the  mending  may 
be  sent  out  to  be  done. 


53 


SECTION  XI 
CLOTHING — LAUNDRY 

FIVE  families  send  all  clothing  to  a  laundry  to  be 
washed,   while   nine   send  none.     One-half   of   the 
families  employ   a  laundress;   sixteen    families   employ 
her  for  one  day  a  week,  eight  for  half  a  day,  and  seven 
have  clothing  taken  to  the  home  of  the  laundress. 

The  schedules  show  that  two  hours  weekly  is  expended 
in  washing  by  seven  families;  three  hours,  by  fifteen; 
four,  by  thirteen;  five  hours,  by  eleven;  six  hours,  by 
four ;  a  few  allow  one,  seven,  eight  and  nine  hours.  One 
family  records  twelve  hours  for  a  family  of  seven,  two 
young  women  doing  the  work.  From  three  to  five  hours 
is  the  most  frequent  time  allowed  for  this  work;  four 
and  one-fourth  hours  is  the  average.  (Item  H,  p.  67.) 

The  time  required  for  ironing  is  usually,  but  not  always, 
more  than  for  washing.  Six  families  who  did  no  wash- 
ing at  home  did  ironing,  which  may  be  accounted  for  by 
the  fact  that  often  families  have  clothing  sent  home 
rough-dried  from  the  laundry  and  ironed  by  the  house- 
wife or  her  assistant.  The  time  recorded  is  two  hours 
by  five  families;  three,  by  nine;  four,  by  ten;  five,  by 
eleven;  six,  by  twelve;  eight,  by  six;  ten,  by  four;  one 
or  two  families  allow  seven,  nine,  and  up.  The  family 
reporting  twelve  hours  for  washing  has  twenty  hours 
of  ironing  done  by  its  two  young  helpers.  Six  hours  is 
the  average  and  the  most  frequent  allowance.  (Item  I, 
p.  67.)  In  those  cases  in  which  all  clothes  are  ironed, 
there  is  generally  allowed  twice  as  long  for  ironing  as 

54 


CLOTHING— LAUNDRY 

for  washing.  Many  families,  however,  report  the  same 
number  of  hours  for  washing  and  for  ironing,  which 
may  indicate  that  many  of  the  plain  pieces  are  folded 
down  and  pressed  without  being  ironed.  Some  house- 
wives feel  that  there  is  a  great  amount  of  unnecessary 
ironing  being  done.  The  argument  in  this  case  is  not  so 
strong  as  is  that  regarding  washing  dishes.  So  long  as 
people  like  to  see  smooth  garments,  towels  and  bed  linen, 
and  are  willing  to  pay  for  this  satisfaction,  the  work 
necessary  to  produce  this  result  has  economic  value  equal 
to  that  of  any  other  productive  activity.  As,  however, 
people  learn  to  simplify  their  work  in  order  that  more 
hours  for  rest  and  recreation  may  be  secured  by  the 
housewife,  then  will  they  begin  to  attach  less  value  to 
some  desires  which  they  now  have  and  find  new  desires 
awakening  and  growing  stronger  as  their  horizon  widens. 


55 


SECTION  XII 
CLOTHING — CARE  OF 

THE  care  of  clothing  includes  its  cleaning,  pressing, 
sorting  and  putting  away.  If  there  are  active  young 
folks  in  a  family,  this  is  a  considerable  item.  The  sched- 
ules report  for  this  line  of  work  half  an  hour  weekly 
for  eleven  families;  three-fourths  of  an  hour  for  three; 
one  hour  for  twenty-three;  one  and  one-half  hours  for 
three ;  two  hours  for  seven ;  three  hours  for  six ;  and  one 
family  each  report  three  and  one-half,  four,  five,  six, 
seven  and  ten  hours.  The  average  is  two  hours  and  the 
most  frequent  time  is  one  hour.  (Item  J,  p.  67.) 


56 


SECTION  XIII 
HOUSE — CLEANING 

IN  considering  the  high  cost  of  living  in  recent  years, 
few  writers  have  emphasized  the  great  increase  in 
the  cost  of  sanitation.  As  the  work  of  woman  in  the 
manufacture  of  clothing  and  the  making  of  foods  (such 
as  butter)  has  decreased,  while  the  income  of  the  hus- 
band has  increased  due  to  the  great  industrial  inventions 
and  discoveries,  there  has  come  over  the  working  class 
a  vast  change  for  the  better.  That  the  mass  of  the  people 
and  their  homes  were  ill-smelling  and  reeking  with  filth 
is  attested  by  every  writer  on  local  conditions  in  the  old 
countries  within  even  a  hundred  years.11  Many  people 
do  not  sufficiently  realize  the  extent  to  which  the  great 
increase  in  cleanliness  of  home  and  person  has  contrib- 
uted toward  the  growth  of  democracy.  So  long  as  the 
upper  classes  felt  the  necessity  of  using  smelling-salts 
whenever  approached  by  one  of  the  common  people,  just 
so  long  would  they  despise  the  vile-smelling  yokels. 


"Kingsley,  Chas.,  "Yeast,"  page  181.  Tregarva,  the  game 
keeper,  speaking  to  Lancelot:  "There's  many  a  boy  .  .  . 
comes  home,  night  after  night,  too  tired  to  eat  their  suppers,  and 
tumble,  fasting,  to  bed  ...  at  eight  o'clock  ...  in  the 
same  foul  shirt  which  they've  been  working  in  all  day,  never 
changing  their  rag  of  calico  from  week's  end  to  week's  end,  or 
washing  the  skin  that's  under  it,  once  in  seven  years"  for  they 
know  "they  must  turn  up  again  at  five  o'clock  the  next  morning, 
to  get  a  breakfast  of  bread,  and,  perhaps,  a  dab  of  the  squire's 
dripping."  Page  70:  "How  can  a  man  be  a  man  in  those 
crowded  styes,  sleeping  and  packed  together  like  Irish  pigs  in  a 
steamer,  never  out  of  the  fear  of  want,  never  knowing  any 
higher  amusement  than  the  beer-shop?"  See  also  pages  160  and 
256  of  the  same  work. 

57 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

Cleanliness  is  not  only  next  to  Godliness,  but  it  is  an 
essential  to  the  establishment  of  the  Brotherhood  of  Man. 

All  of  those  writers  who  so  continually  emphasize  the 
fact  that  the  woman  has  become  a  consumer  rather  than 
a  producer,  because  so  much  of  her  work  has  been  taken 
over  by  the  factory,  fail  entirely  to  realize  that  the  care- 
ful, conscientious  housewife  of  today  has  a  large  amount 
of  new  work  to  take  the  place  of  that  which  has  van- 
ished; for  now  she  must  labor  many  hours  in  order  to 
keep  the  house  clean,  and  the  clothes  fresh  and  sweet. 
Since  the  masses  of  the  people  now  want  this  cleanliness, 
the  work  necessary  to  fill  this  want  is  just  as  truly  pro- 
duction as  was  the  making  of  butter  or  candles.  Instead 
of  woman  having  changed  from  a  producer  to  a  con- 
sumer, she  has,  to  a  marked  degree,  changed  from  a 
producer  of  things  to  a  producer  of  services.  There  has 
been  also  an  increase  rather  than  a  decrease  in  the  total 
amount  of  wealth  produced  by  husband  and  wife 
together. 

Since  the  amount  of  time  spent  in  house-cleaning  will 
depend  quite  a  little  upon  the  number  of  rooms  in  the 
house  and  upon  how  the  floors  are  covered,  information 
was  requested  regarding  these  points.  (Query  7.)  Of 
the  families  studied,  thirteen  lived  in  houses  having  eight 
rooms,  five  had  nine-room  houses,  fourteen  had  ten 
rooms,  seven  had  eleven,  four  had  twelve;  several  lived 
in  houses  having  as  many  as  thirteen  rooms ;  on  the 
other  hand,  a  few  had  only  six-room  houses.  This  study, 
therefore,  deals  mainly  with  the  houses  having  eight  to 
ten  rooms. 

Query  10  asks  how  many  rooms  have  carpets,  how 
many  matting  and  how  many  have  rugs? 

Thirty-two  of  the  families  scheduled  report  using  no 
matting;  twenty-four  use  no  carpets,  while  all  but  six 

58 


HOUSE— CLEANING 

use  some  rugs.  One  uses  only  matting,  one  only  carpet, 
and  ten  use  rugs  only.  The  total  number  of  rooms 
reported  as  having  the  floors  covered  with  matting  is 
71 ;  carpet,  105 ;  rugs,  332. 

Query  10  also  asks :  "If  carpets  and  matting  are  used, 
state  how  frequently  they  are  taken  up  and  cleaned,  how 
cleaned,  and  by  whom?"  One  reports  cleaning  carpets 
and  matting  once  a  month;  one,  three  times  a  year; 
eighteen,  twice  a  year;  ten,  once  a  year;  one,  once  in 
two  years;  and  two,  once  in  three  years.  One  family 
says  floor  coverings  are  not  taken  up  since  a  vacuum 
cleaner  has  been  purchased.  Two  report  that  matting 
is  taken  up  only  when  worn,  to  be  turned. 

Cleaning  of  carpets  and  matting  is  done  by  the  house- 
wife in  five  families,  by  housewife  and  helper  in  one, 
by  husband  in  three,  by  husband  and  boys  in  three,  by 
boys  in  one,  by  hired  man  in  thirteen,  by  hired  woman 
in  two,  by  special  carpet  cleaners  in  four,  and  outside  of 
the  home  by  five  families.  The  practice  with  rugs  is 
about  the  same,  except  that  the  cleanings  are  more 
frequent. 

The  Query  "Are  carpets  and  rugs  ever  cleaned  by 
machinery  outside  of  home?"  is  answered  in  the  affirma- 
tive by  twenty-four  and  negatively  by  thirty-one;  one 
says  "rarely." 

Vacuum  cleaners  are  owned  by  twenty-nine  families, 
thirty  have  none,  one  has  a  vacuum  sweeper.  Of  the 
thirty  who  do  not  own  a  vacuum  cleaner,  eighteen  rent 
one ;  three  once  a  year,  five  semi-annually,  one  three 
times  a  year,  three  quarterly,  two  monthly,  one  weekly, 
and  three  "occasionally."  Over  80  per  cent,  of  the 
families  use  a  vacuum  cleaner  owned  or  rented. 

The  vacuum  cleaner  is  used  by  a  hired  person  in  seven 
families,  by  housewife  in  ten,  housewife  and  hired  person 

59 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

in  three,  houseworker  in  three,  housewife  and  daughter 
in  one,  husband  in  one,  and  "family"  in  one  household. 

The  time  recorded  in  the  schedules  for  daily  house- 
cleaning  was  one  hour  per  week  in  sixteen  families; 
two  hours  in  five ;  three  in  fifteen ;  four  in  five ;  five  in 
three;  six  in  seven;  several  families  each  allow  seven, 
nine,  ten,  twelve,  fourteen  and  eighteen  hours.  The 
average  is  four  and  one-half  hours  weekly;  the  most 
frequent,  one  and  three  hours.  The  twelve  families  who 
kept  an  actual  record  allow  from  one  to  six  hours  weekly. 
(Item  K,  p.  67.) 

Naturally,  more  time  is  allowed  for  the  weekly  clean- 
ing, the  records  being  as  follows : 


Hours  per  Week  No.  of  Families 

0  3 

1  0 

2  4 

3  9 

4  9 

5  9 

6  12 

7  3 

8  5 

9  5 


The  families  keeping  a  record  usually  allow  four  to 
twelve  hours ;  six  hours  is  the  average  and  also  the  most 
frequently  mentioned.  (Item  L,  p.  67.) 


60 


SECTION  XIV 
HOUSE — CARE  OF 

THE  care  of  the  house  refers  to  chamberwork  and 
"setting  to  rights,"  distinguished  from  cleaning  in 
order  that  the  cost  of  cleanliness12  may  be  ascertained 
separately.  The  average  time  mentioned  for  the  care 
of  the  house  is  one  and  three-fourths  hours;  the  most 
frequent  is  one  hour,  which  is  the  time  given  by  one- 
third  of  the  families;  eleven  record  a  half -hour,  which 
is  the  lowest  time  given.  One  family  each  mention  four, 
five,  six,  seven  and  ten  hours.  (Item  M,  p.  67.) 

This  division  of  housework  also  includes  the  care  of 
the  heating,  so  Query  6  asks :  "How  is  dwelling  heated  ? 
Who  takes  care  of  heating?'*  The  replies  are:  Hot-air 
furnace,  thirty  families;  hot  water,  twelve;  steam,  nine; 
coal  stoves,  eight ;  oil,  gas  stove  and  fireplace,  one.  More 
important  for  an  economic  study  are  the  answers  as  to 
who  looks  after  the  heating  apparatus :  the  husband  does 
this  work  in  thirty  families;  husband  and  housewife, 
five;  husband  and  son,  five;  husband  and  houseworker, 
one;  housewife,  five;  housewife  and  houseworker,  one; 
hired  man  or  janitor,  five.  No  question  was  specifically 
asked  as  to  the  time  required  for  this  work,  so  it  will 
be  considered  as  included  in  the  estimates  of  care  of 
house-. 


12  Richards,  E.  H.,  "Cost  of  Cleanliness." 

61 


SECTION  XV 
CHILDREN — CARE  OF 

THE  inquiry  regarding  children  (Section  XV  of  the 
Schedule)  was  divided  into  three  classes, — the  care 
of  their  person  (dressing,  bathing,  etc.)  ;  teaching  and 
entertainment ;  oversight. 

It  has  been  stated  in  the  description  of  the  families 
scheduled  (p.  20)  that  twenty-six  of  the  families  had 
children  under  ten  years  of  age  (thirty-three  had  chil- 
dren under  twelve  years  of  age).  The  time  given  to 
the  care  of  children,  and  to  their  teaching  and  manage- 
ment, were  almost  the  same,  with  slightly  more  time 
given  to  the  former.  Each  hour  from  two  up  to  seven 
per  week  was  given  by  four  or  five  families  to  care  and 
to  entertainment ;  then  one  or  two  families  for  each  hour 
up  to  fifteen;  then  one  family  each  giving  eighteen, 
twenty-two,  twenty-five,  twenty-eight  and  thirty-three 
hours  to  care,  and  one  each  giving  twenty-one,  thirty-two 
and  forty-five  hours  to  entertainment. 

The  relation  between  large  families  and  the  time  given 
to  children  is  not  as  close  as  would  be  expected.  Only 
one  of  the  seven  families  having  three  children  under 
twelve  years  of  age  gives  over  ten  hours  per  week  to 
both  care  of  the  children  and  their  teaching  and  enter- 
tainment. Three  give  over  ten  hours  to  care,  and  three 
give  over  ten  hours  to  entertainment. 

Six  hours  per  week  given  to  the  care  of  children  and 
the  same  time  to  their  teaching  and  entertainment,  is 

62 


CHILDREN— CARE  OF 

about  the  average;  five  hours  is  the  most  frequent, 
although  two,  three,  four,  six  and  seven  hours  are  men- 
tioned nearly  as  frequently.  (Items  N,  P,  p.  67.) 


63 


SECTION  XVI 
CHILDREN — OVERSIGHT 

THE  answers  to  the  query  regarding  the  time  given 
to  the  oversight  of  children  are  indefinite,  owing, 
no  doubt,  to  the  vague  understanding  of  what  was  to  be 
included  under  this  heading.  One  mother  answered  "all 
the  time,"  which  is  true  to  the  extent  that  potentially  she 
may  be  called  on  at  any  minute  and  that  the  responsi- 
bility for  her  offspring,  when  they  are  under  school  age, 
is  never  off  her  mind.  A  footnote  in  the  Schedule  (Sec- 
tion XV)  explains  that  "oversight  of  children  while  doing 
other  things,  as  eating  meals,  shopping  while  out  walking 
with  them,  etc.,  should  count  just  what  additional  time 
is  required  above  that  necessary  if  there  were  no 
children." 

Each  hour  from  one  to  ten  is  credited  by  from  one 
to  three  families  as  the  time  given  to  oversight,  and  one 
family  each  mentions  fifteen,  seventeen  and  nineteen 
hours.  These  latter  families  each  have  a  young  child, 
but  no  baby;  a  family  having  a  baby  credits  no  time  to 
oversight,  although  giving  twenty-one  hours  for  the  care 
of  the  infant.  The  average  time  given  to  oversight  is 
about  seven  hours  weekly;  six  hours  is  mentioned  most 
frequently.  The  difficulties  of  accurate  measurement  of 
the  time  properly  coming  under  this  heading  is  apparent. 
(Item  O,  p.  67.) 


64 


SECTION  XVII 
MANAGEMENT  OF  THE  HOUSEHOLD 

TIJ*ANAGEMENT  of  the  household  includes  the  time 
^-*-  spent  on  the  keeping  of  accounts,  planning  of  work, 
and,  when  it  is  being  done  by  others,  its  oversight.  Like 
the  oversight  of  children,  management  is  a  very  neces- 
sary work  which  is  difficult  to  determine  accurately  in 
terms  of  hours.  Yet  there  is  no  other  duty  of  the  house- 
wife which,  if  successfully  performed,  will  have  so  great 
an  effect  upon  the  comfort  and  value  of  home  life.  No 
matter  how  excellent  a  cook  a  woman  may  be,  or  how 
clever  with  her  needle,  if  this  one  supreme  quality  is 
lacking  she  cannot  be  considered  a  successful  housewife. 
Yet  she  may  be  an  adorable  wife! 

No  time  is  reported  under  this  heading  by  fifteen 
families;  some  of  these  housewives  stated  that  plans 
were  being  revolved  in  the  mind  and  worked  out  while 
they  were  doing  the  dishwashing,  making  the  beds,  etc. 
One  hour  is  allowed  for  management  by  eight  families; 
one  and  one-half  hours  by  six;  two  hours  by  thirteen; 
three  hours  by  twelve;  four  hours  by  five;  six  hours 
by  four;  one  family  each  allows  five,  seven,  twelve, 
fifteen  and  eighteen  hours;  the  average  is  about  three 
hours  weekly;  three  hours  is  also  mentioned  most 
frequently.  (Item  Q,  p.  67.) 

As  the  settlement  of  accounts  is  a  necessary  part  of 
household  management,  Query  28  asks:  "Who  usually 

65 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

pays  the  monthly  bills  ?"  In  twenty-six  families  the  hus- 
band pays  the  monthly  bills ;  in  twenty-two  the  housewife 
pays  them;  in  three  either  husband  or  wife  makes  a 
settlement ;  four  families  report  that  they  pay  cash. 


66 


SECTION  XVIII 
SUMMARY  OF  WORKING  HOURS 

THE  results  obtained  from  the  sixty  families  sched- 
uled, under  each  of  the  above  seventeen  divisions 
of  housework,  may  now  be  tabulated.    The  hours  given 
represent  the  total  amount  of  work  of  the  housewife  and 
her  assistants,  whether  hired  or  members  of  the  family. 


HOURS  PER  WEEK 

Most 

Item                                                               Average  Frequent     Lowest  Highest 

A.  Food,  purchase    4  2  0^  11 

B.  Food,  cooking   21  14  8  45 

C.  Food,   serving    9  10  5  30 

D.  Food,  dishwashing   10  10  3  21 

E.  Clothing,    purchase    2^  2  0^  12 

F.  Clothing,   making    5^  2&3  0  30 

G.  Clothing,  repairing  4  2&3  0  18 

H.  Clothing,    laundry,    washing.     4^4  3  &5  0  9 

I.  Clothing,  laundry,  ironing...     6  6  2  20 

J.  Clothing,  care  of    2  1  0^  10 

K.  House,    cleaning,    daily 4^  1&3  1  18 

L.  House,  cleaning,  weekly 5  60  9 

M.  House,  care  of   1)4  1  0^  10 

N.  Children,  care  of   6  5  2  33 

O.  Children,   oversight    7  6  1  19 

P.  Children,  entertainment   6  5  2  45 

Q.  Management    3  3  1  18 


82 

Query  3  asks  the  housewife  to  state  how  many  hours 
are  daily  spent  on  week-days  and  Sundays  in  housework, 
by  herself  and  by  each  member  of  the  household.  The 
detailed  summary  of  the  replies  is  as  follows : 

67 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

Housewife  All  Workers 

Hours  No.  of  Families  No.  of  Families 

per  Day  Weekdays  Sundays  Weekdays  Sundays 

1    '  0  3  0  1 

20500 

32703 

4  5  14*  0 

52807* 

65615 

74315 

86634 

95012 

10  14*  2  2  4 

11  2  0  3  2 

12  7  1  8*  3 

13  2  0  3  1 

14  1  0  4  2 

15  32 

16  32 

17  3  0 

18  4  1 

19  2  1 

20  40 

21  0 

Average  8^  4.8  15  8.4 

The  average  for  the  housewife  is  eight  and  one-half 
hours  per  day,  while  the  most  frequent  time  given  is  ten 
hours ;  for  Sunday  the  average  is  4.8  hours  and  the  most 
frequent  time  four  hours.  This  would  give  a  56-hour 
week  for  the  average  and  a  64-hour  week  as  the  most 
frequent.  Eight  hours  per  day  would  be  fifty-six  hours 
weekly,  and  nine  hours  would  be  sixty-three.  The  differ- 
ence between  this  and  the  working  hours  of  men  is  that 
nearly  all  men  have  Sunday  off,  and  many  of  them  have 
a  half-holiday  on  Saturday.  Ten  hours  for  five  days  and 
five  hours  for  Saturday  would  be  fifty-five  hours,  or 
nearly  the  equivalent  of  the  average  for  the  housewife. 
Twelve  hours  for  five  days  and  six  hours  for  Saturday 
would  be  sixty-six  hours,  which  is  little  more  than  the 
time  mentioned  most  frequently  by  housewives. 

*  Those  starred  are  most  frequently  mentioned. 

68 


SUMMARY  OF  WORKING  HOURS 

The  estimated  time  daily  spent  in  housework  for  all 
the  members  of  the  household  is  fifteen  hours  on  week- 
days as  the  average,  with  twelve  hours  the  most  fre- 
quently mentioned;  on  Sundays  8.4  and  five  hours 
respectively.  This  gives  a  total  of  almost  100  (98.4) 
hours  of  work  per  week  as  the  average  time  expended  in 
household  work. 

These  estimates  must  now  be  compared  with  the 
answers  given  under  Query  15.  Here  the  housewife  is 
asked  to  "state  the  number  of  hours'  work  done  by  each 
member  of  the  household  in  each  line  of  household  work 
during  an  average  week."  When  these  estimates  are 
totaled  and  averaged  (p.  67),  the  result  is  a  little  over 
100  (10l£4)  hours  per  week,  or  a  difference  of  only 
three  and  one-half  hours  from  the  average  under  Query 
3.  Yet  many  of  the  individual  estimates  under  Queries 
3  and  15  vary  widely,  thirty-eight  out  of  sixty  being  ten 
or  more  hours  different  in  amount.  Thirty  housewives 
give  a  larger  estimate  of  working  hours  under  Query  3 
than  under  Query  15,  while  twenty-five  housewives  esti- 
mate the  opposite  way. 

Numerous  discrepancies  in  individual  household  sched- 
ules were  due  to  carelessness,  such  as  those  cases  in  which 
the  work  of  a  daughter  or  maid  is  included  under  Query 
3  and  not  under  Query  15,  or  vice  versa.  Some  of  the 
widest  discrepancies  in  the  number  of  hours  per  week 
were: 

Suery    3  222  142  90  77  151  86 

uery  15  58  80  40  46  76  200 

If  a  housewife  were  paid  by  the  hour  as  shown  by  a 
time  slip  handed  in  at  the  end  of  the  week  (as  are  many 
working  men),  such  discrepancies  would  be  unlikely  to 
occur.  They  show  the  indifference  of  a  considerable 

69 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

number  of  housewives  to  studies  of  household  conditions 
made  for  the  purpose  of  improving  such  conditions.  This 
is  characteristic,  of  course,  of  a  certain  percentage  of  all 
workers.  Some  uncomplainingly  accept  whatever  Provi- 
dence may  have  seen  fit  to  ordain  as  their  lot;  others 
complain  of  overwork,  not  realizing  that  usually  more  use 
of  the  head  would  save  much  use  of  the  hands  and  feet. 
In  the  next  table  a  comparison  is  made  between  the 
actual  weekly  records  of  housework  kept  by  the  families 
as  suggested  in  Section  41  of  the  Schedule  and  "esti- 
mates" for  the  same  families  given  in  answer  to  Query  3 : 

Estimates  28      55      76    126      66      80      97    134    104    133 

Actual  record    28      46      54      63      65      80      89    112    120    128 

The  next  to  the  last  schedule  given  in  this  table  was 
made  by  a  graduate  student  in  household  science  who  a 
year  before  had  filled  out  a  schedule  for  the  same  family, 
recording  sixty-seven  hours  under  Query  3  and  two  hun- 
dred and  twenty-three  hours  for  Query  15.  The  revised 
schedule  shows  the  benefit  of  education,  in  that  greater 
care  was  used  in  making  records.  The  family  reporting 
only  twenty-eight  hours  of  housework  will  seem  to  most 
housewives  to  have  made  a  wild  guess,  but  this  is  an 
actual  record  made  by  a  bright  young  woman  who  is 
keenly  interested  in  labor-saving  methods.  The  hours 
given  to  cleaning  are  few,  because  her  house  has  all  hard- 
wood floors  covered  with  rugs ;  dishes  are  washed  only 
once  daily  (immediately  after  breakfast)  and  not  wiped. 
The  family  is  vegetarian,  eats  no  pies  or  cakes,  and  rarely 
fries  food,  hence  there  are  few  greasy  pots  and  pans  to 
clean.  There  are  no  children,  and  the  housewife  does 

70 


SUMMARY  OF  WORKING  HOURS 

all  the  work,  except  for  the  assistance  of  a  laundress 
one  day  bi-weekly.  This  young  housewife  feels  that  she 
has  solved  the  housekeping  problem,  but  as  there  are  no 
children,  the  family  is  not  a  "normal"  one. 


71 


SECTION  XIX 
EXTRA  WORK 

ALL  of  the  housewife's  time  is  not  accounted  for 
when  the  regular  duties  of  the  day  have  been 
recorded  and  classified.  Even  with  the  best  of  manage- 
ment there  is  a  multitude  of  duties  which  cannot  be 
avoided;  odds  and  ends  of  work  which  do  not  fit  into 
any  of  the  classes  mentioned.  Extra  time  when  a  special 
dessert  is  desired,  or  a  guest  comes,  answering  the  door- 
bell, a  bad  tear  in  the  boy's  trousers  requiring  immediate 
attention,  getting  the  little  folks  ready  for  a  party,  illness 
of  husband  or  children,  furniture  repairs,  and  so  forth. 
Whether  the  time  required  for  these  duties  should  be 
taken  out  of  that  allowed  for  some  other  item,  such  as 
reducing  the  time  given  to  cleaning,  when  company  comes 
or  illness  occurs,  or  whether  the  housewife  lengthens  her 
working  time,  will  require  further  investigation  to  deter- 
mine definitely.  Organized  workers  usually  expect  extra 
pay  for  "overtime" ! 


72 


SECTION  XX 
LOST  TIME 

AS  allowance  must  be  made  for  extra  time,  so  some 
consideration  must  be  given  to  time  that  is  lost  in 
running  a  household.  Amongst  working  men  much  time 
is  lost  each  year  through  accident,  illness  and  unemploy- 
ment. One  advantage  of  choosing  housework  as  a  career 
is  that  there  is  not  much  suffering  or  loss  of  time  from 
accidents,  most  of  those  which  occur  being  slight  bruises, 
burns  and  cuts.  But  illness  affects  the  housewife  in  a 
double  measure,  both  in  preventing  her  from  working 
and  in  taking  her  time  as  nurse  to  look  after  other  mem- 
bers of  the  family  who  become  ill.  While  the  housewife 
does  not  suffer  from  unemployment,  since  she  is  never 
out  of  a  "job,"  she  may,  if  there  are  no  children,  have 
far  more  leisure  time  than  has  her  husband. 

In  the  table,  under  Query  3,  there  is  a  column  in  which 
the  housewife  is  asked  to  make  a  record  of  "Health," 
"measured  by  physical  ability  to  do  household  work  eight 
hours  a  day."  Forty-nine  recorded  their  health  as  being 
"good,"  ten  as  "fair,"  and  one,  "poor."  The  purpose  of 
the  query  was  to  ascertain  to  what  extent  the  work  of 
the  housewife  is  curtailed  by  physical  weakness,  but  the 
data  are  not  sufficient  to  yield  any  conclusions  of  value. 
The  question  should  have  been  worded,  "How  many 
days  during  the  past  year  were  lost  through  illness?" 
Investigations  are  just  beginning  to  be  made  along  this 
line  amongst  working  men  as  the  result  of  industrial 
insurance  laws  which  are  giving  us  data  as  to  the  number 
of  hours  per  man  per  year  lost  by  sickness.  In  the  case 

73 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

of  women  working  in  the  home  we  should  consider  not 
only  the  actual  days  lost  when  one  is  confined  to  a  bed 
with  extreme  illness,  but  the  great  loss  through  poor 
health  when  the  worker  barely  manages  to  keep  on  her 
feet  and  but  does  only  a  half  or  a  third  of  a  good  day's 
work. 

Writers  on  household  topics  who  lay  great  emphasis 
upon  those  forms  of  woman's  work  which  have  been 
taken  out  of  the  home  and  specialized,  as  the  making 
of  clothing,  butter  and  candles,  do  not  often  refer  to 
another  branch  of  work  which  has,  also,  to  a  considerable 
degree,  been  given  over  to  specialists.  The  doctor,  the 
hospital  and  the  trained  nurse  have  relieved  the  over- 
burdened housewife  of  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
nursing  of  the  sick  which  has  been  one  of  her  various 
vocations.  Even  today,  however,  the  mother  is  expected 
to  be  able  to  handle  all  mild  attacks  and  to  call  upon 
these  aids  only  in  cases  of  severe  illness.  No  accurate 
information  on  this  point  has  yet  been  obtained. 


74 


SECTION  XXI 
HOMEWORK  OTHER  THAN  HOUSEWORK 

IN  addition  to  those  duties  recognized  as  household 
work  many  housewives  are  expected,  or  choose,  to 
perform  other  labors  either  for  the  purpose  of  saving 
money  or  of  sharing  their  husband's  burdens.  In  the 
country,  for  instance,  there  are  farmers  who  consider 
the  care  of  chickens  as  part  of  the  housewife's  duties, 
and  sometimes  the  milking  of  cows  or  the  keeping  of  the 
dairy  is  also  added.  Only  a  few  of  the  families  investi- 
gated lived  in  the  country  and  none  of  them,  apparently, 
included  such  labors  as  the  above  in  their  answers  to 
Queries  3  and  15.  In  the  present  inquiry  such  work  is 
not  considered  as  housework. 

In  country,  suburban  and  many  city  homes  the  care 
of  the  lawn  and  flower  garden  occupies  quite  a  number 
of  hours  weekly  of  the  time  of  the  housewife  or  husband 
or  gardener.  This  work  might  fairly  be  included  under 
housework  inasmuch  as  its  object  is  to  increase  the  beauty 
of  the  home,  yet  since  no  query  was  made  regarding  it 
no  attempt  will  be  made  to  estimate  the  amount  of  time 
spent  in  this  way.  A  few  of  those  who  made  exact 
records  for  a  week  made  mention  of  care  of  flowers  or 
work  outside  of  the  house,  but  this  was  not  included  in 
the  final  total  of  housework. 

Query  12  asks:  "Do  you  or  any  of  your  regular 
household  do  any  papering,  painting,  whitewashing, 
make  carpentry  repairs  or  any  other  work  in  house  not 
usually  classed  as  household  work?  If  so,  how  much 

75 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

time  was  spent  in  each  such  line  of  work  in  the  past 
year?" 

One-half  of  the  families  report  that  some  work  of 
this  character  has  been  done,  but  it  is  impossible  to  make 
an  accurate  estimate  of  the  amount  thereof,  because  no 
one  had  kept  a  record  of  the  time  thus  spent. 

Carpentry  work  is  mentioned  by  fourteen  families  as 
having  been  carried  on  during  the  year  for  from  one 
day  to  a  month;  painting  by  ten  families  (one  mentions 
screens  and  porch  furniture)  ;  whitewashing,  six  fami- 
lies; papering,  three  families;  varnishing,  two;  staining 
floors,  one;  upholstering,  one;  plumbing,  one.  Time 
under  this  heading  will  be  considered  as  extra  work 
(p.  42). 

Query  13  asks :  "Is  any  work  done  in  the  home  other 
than  household  work  and  that  included  in  answer  to 
Query  12?"  Very  few  answer  in  the  affirmative.  One 
does  arts  and  crafts  work;  two  do  dressmaking  (for 
others  than  their  own  families)  ;  several  refer  to  care  of 
chickens,  garden  or  lawn. 


76 


SECTION  XXII 
THE  EIGHT-HOUR  DAY 

AS  the  complaint  is  occasionally  made  by  the  house- 
wife that  "woman's  work  is  never  done,"  an 
attempt  was  made  to  ascertain  the  views  of  housewives 
by  asking  (Query  16)  :  "If  physical  ability  and  skill  of 
housewife  and  present  assistants  were  first  class  could 
all  your  household  work  be  done,  as  you  would  like  to 
see  it  done,  during  present  working  hours?"  "Could  it 
be  done  if  housewife  and  present  assistants  worked  on 
an  eight-hour  day  basis?" 

To  the  first  question  only  five  housewives  answered 
"No,"  one  adding  "No,  emphatically" ;  to  the  latter  ques- 
tion eleven  answered  "No,"  one  other  "sometimes," 
another  says,  "Yes,  if  there  was  some  incentive"  (re- 
ferring to  her  two  young  women  assistants).  One  house- 
wife who  has  no  children  remarks,  "Do  not  need  eight 
hours." 

One  might  hazard  the  suggestion  that  if  people  would 
be  satisfied  to  eat  simply  prepared,  wholesome  food  and 
to  dress  neatly,  avoiding  the  vagaries  of  "style,"  a  normal 
family  could  operate  on  an  eight-hour  day  basis  with  the 
assistance  of  one  houseworker.  Or,  since  Sunday  work 
is  unavoidable  in  the  private  household,  eight  hours  for 
five  days,  six  hours  on  Saturday  and  four  hours  on 
Sunday  would  give  fifty  hours  for  each,  or  one  hundred 
hours  per  week  for  both  housewife  and  houseworker, 
which  is  about  the  time  estimated  as  required  by  the 
average  of  the  sixty  families  under  study.  (See  p.  69.) 

77 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

Two  interesting  queries  arise  here: 

Should  the  American  business  man  expect  from  his 
wife  or  her  assistant  longer  hours  of  labor  than  he  asks 
of  his  office  force? 

When  the  American  working  man  will  expect  of  his 
wife  only  as  many  hours  of  labor  as  he  asks  of  his 
employer  will  there  not  be  a  revolution  in  housework  ?13 


13  At  the  Convention  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
held  in  Philadelphia,  November,  1914,  a  resolution  favoring  a 
six-hour  day  was  passed.  Suppose  the  wives  of  the  delegates 
should  strike  for  this  work  day  in  the  household! 

78 


SECTION  XXIII 
LABOR-SAVING  MACHINERY 

THE    amount    of    time    required    in    housework    is 
affected  to  a  considerable  degree  by  the  tools  with 
which  the  work  is  done,  in  other  words,  by  the  extent  to 
which   labor-saving   devices   are   used.     In    fact,   many 
writers  are  urging  that  the  introduction  of  a  multitude 
of  labor-saving  machines  into  the  kitchen  will  furnish 
the  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  overworked  housewife. 
Query  14  asks :     "How  many  labor-saving  devices  do 
you  make  regular  use  of  in  your  housework?     State 
reason  why  you  do  not  use  the  article  mentioned." 

The  one  machine  used  by  all  of  the  sixty  families  is 
the  sewing  machine.  It  would  seem  almost  as  strange 
to  calculate  the  time  saved  by  the  use  of  a  sewing  machine 
as  it  would  to  credit  the  saving  made  by  the  use  of  a 
stove  rather  than  an  open  fireplace  for  cooking,  so  accus- 
tomed have  most  of  us  become  to  the  presence  and  use 
of  this  great  labor-saving  device.  Possibly  a  generation 
hence  our  children  will  feel  the  same  way  regarding 
some  of  the  implements  with  which  we  are  just  now  com- 
mencing to  experiment.  But  although  we  accept  the 
time  saved  by  the  use  of  the  sewing  machine  without 
comment,  nevertheless  we  should  reckon  on  the  added 
value  of  an  hour's  work  by  its  use  when  we  come  to 
consider  the  value  of  an  hour's  working  time. 

A  machine  almost  universally  owned  is  a  carpet- 
sweeper,  which  fifty-six  families  state  that  they  use. 
Four  do  not  have  sweepers,  three  of  them  because  they 

79 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

have  rugs,  which  they  prefer  taking  outside  to  clean, 
and  one  on  account  of  expense.  One  remarks,  "Do  not 
use  it  as  housekeeper  thinks  it  does  not  clean  well 
enough." 

One-half  of  the  families  own  vacuum  cleaners,  twenty- 
two  of  which  are  operated  by  hand  and  seven  by  electric 
power;  one  has  a  vacuum  sweeper.  Of  the  thirty  who 
do  not  own  one  of  these  machines,  two  expect  to  pur- 
chase one  soon,  and  two  have  none  "because  there  is  no 
electricity  in  the  house  and  the  hand  machines  are  too 
hard  to  work."14 

Even  though  the  thorough  cleaning  of  a  room  with  a 
vacuum  cleaner  may  take  as  much  time  as  sweeping  the 
room,  a  saving  of  time  will  result  from  the  fact  that  the 
room  will  be  much  cleaner  and  it  will  need  to  be  cleaned 
less  frequently.  By  the  use  of  the  vacuum  cleaner  there 
will  be  a  saving  in  the  time  spent  on  dusting.  Further- 
more, the  old  method  of  sweeping  with  a  broom  which 
fills  the  air  with  dust  is  inimical  to  the  health  of  the 
sweeper. 

In  the  washing  of  clothing  the  use  of  a  wringer  and 
washboard  was  assumed.  That  there  is  a  considerable 
saving  of  time  and  wear  and  tear  on  clothing  by  the  use 
of  these  over  the  primitive  method  of  beating  clothes 
with  a  paddle  or  pounding  them  with  a  rock  and  wringing 
them  out  by  hand  is  evident.  No  data  were  obtained 
regarding  the  number  of  families  whose  homes  are 
equipped  with  stationary  wash  tubs ;  their  use  saves  some 
time  at  each  week's  washing. 

Washing  machines  are  reported  by  half  of  the  families ; 
nineteen  use  hand  machines  and  four  have  power  ma- 


14  Some  rural  housewives  are  beginning  to  utilize  the  automo- 
bile motor  to  operate  an  electric  vacuum  cleaner  and  other 
mechanical  aids  to  the  housewife. 

80 


LABOR-SAVING  MACHINERY 

chines;  the  remainder  do  not  state  which  form  is  used. 
The  reasons  given  for  not  using  a  washing  machine  are 
varied:  Seven  state,  "Have  none  because  washing  is 
done  out";  two  mention  "expense";  one  family  each 
gives  as  a  reason  for  non-use,  "we  have  a  washing 
machine  but  laundress  prefers  not  to  use  it";  "washer- 
woman would  not  use  it" ;  "prefer  washboard" ;  "prefer 
hand  washing,  less  wear  on  clothes";  "does  not  get 
clothes  clean"  (those  who  use  machines  find  that  it  is 
necessary  to  give  stains  and  spots  a  special  hand  treat- 
ment) ;  "not  necessary";  "ignorance."  A  "cold  mangle," 
a  machine  about  twice  the  size  of  a  wringer,  was  reported 
by  one  family.  The  clothes  are  taken  from  the  line  when 
all  but  dry,  folded  and  put  through  the  mangle,  then  laid 
away  ready  for  use. 

To  the  inquiry  as  to  whether  the  family  is  using  a 
power  attachment  (electric  or  water)  for  sewing  ma- 
chine, washing  machine,  wringer,  mangle,  etc.,  forty-four 
answer  in  the  negative;  thirteen,  "on  account  of  ex- 
pense"; two,  "have  no  use  for  it";  two,  "do  not  care  to 
bother  to  experiment" ;  one  family  each  gives  as  a  reason 
for  non-use  of  power, — "not  enough  work  to  require  it" ; 
"never  tried  them";  "not  yet";  "ignorance";  "have  no 
power  in  the  house" ;  one  country  housewife  pointedly 
remarks,  "husband  has  power  at  the  barn,  but  wife  is  not 
considered."  One  family  uses  water,  and  one  electric, 
power  for  a  sewing  machine ;  one  has  an  electric  attach- 
ment for  a  washing  machine.  Therefore,  only  three  out 
of  sixty  housewives  make  any  use  of  other  than  hand 
power  in  housekeeping,  except  in  connection  with  vacuum 
cleaning,  and  in  that  line  of  work  only  seven  used  electric 
machines,  a  total  of  ten  using  power  applied  to  house- 
work. % 

81 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

One-half  of  the  families  use  no  gas  or  electric  iron; 
thirteen  use  gas;  eleven,  electric;  three  have  both;  four 
answer  simply  "yes,"  without  specifying  which.  One 
reports  a  gasoline  iron.  Seven  have  neither  because 
there  is  no  gas  or  electricity  in  the  house;  three,  "have 
not  bothered  to  experiment  with  it";  two  say  "gas  iron 
too  heavy  and  no  electricity  in  the  house";  each  of  the 
following  reasons  is  given  by  one  family, — "electricity 
too  expensive" ;  "expect  to  purchase  electric  soon" ;  "gas 
is  cheaper  than  gas  iron,  use  only  one  jet  for  two  irons" ; 
"washerwoman  does  not  like  to  use  it";  "not  desirable 
for  our  work" ;  "prejudice." 

The  dishwasher  is  not  in  use  in  any   family.     The 
reasons  for  non-use  in  the  order  of  frequency  given  were 
seven,  "expense";  six,  "no  use  for  it"  or  "not  needed" 
three,  "do  not  think  it  will  work" ;  two,  "family  small" 
two,  "ignorance" ;  two,  "never  saw  one" ;  and  one  each, — 
"never  tried  one";  "never  thought  of  it";  "do  not  like 
it" ;  "prefer  handwashed" ;  "prejudice" ;  "destroys  china"  ; 
"do  not  care  to  experiment" ;  "too  expensive  for  number 
of  dishes  used";  "dishwashing  good  training  for  girls"; 
"inefficiency  of  cook." 

Whether  a  bread  mixer  is  a  desirable  labor-saving 
device  depends,  of  course,  first  upon  whether  the  family 
prefers  to  make  bread  at  home.  The  answers  to  Query  20 
showed  that  only  twenty-three  families  make  bread  at 
home ;  of  these  sixteen  use  a  mixer.  Two  families  report 
a  cake  mixer.  The  reasons  given  for  not  using  a  machine 
are:  By  three  families,  "not  desirable";  by  one  family 
each,  "expense";  "family  small";  "prejudice";  "igno- 
rance" ;  "never  tried  it" ;  "expect  to  purchase  one" ; 
"helper  does  not  care  to  try  it" ;  "never  thought  I  should 
like  it";  "family  consumes  little  bread  and  then  a  beaten 
whole  wheat  mixture";  "prefer  hand-made  bread." 

82 


LABOR-SAVING  MACHINERY 

Egg  beaters,  meat  grinders,  potato  ricers  and  similar 
utensils  were  not  scheduled  as  they  were  assumed  to  be  in 
all  kitchens  of  the  class  of  homes  being  studied.  In  pre- 
serving fruit  the  use  of  a  cherry  stoner  is  advocated  by 
some  housewives;  others  claim  that  the  work  can  be 
done  as  quickly  by  hand,  and  still  others  do  not  like  the 
machine  because  it  mangles  the  fruit. 

The  fireless  cooker  is  one  of  the  kitchen  utensils  which 
is  now  receiving  much  attention,  yet  only  six  families 
report  having  this  valuable  implement.  The  reasons  given 
for  not  having  a  fireless  cooker  are :  Ten  families  give 
as  the  principal  difficulty,  "expense" ;  ten,  "not  needed" ; 
four,  "do  not  care  to  experiment";  four,  "will  purchase 
one  soon";  one  family  each  states, — "prefer  gas  stove"; 
"have  such  a  good  gasoline  range";  "keep  coal  fire  all 
the  time  for  hot  water";  "never  tried  it";  "would  use  it 
if  did  not  have  hired  help";  "rather  prejudiced  against 
it." 

The  saving  made  by  the  use  of  a  fireless  cooker  is  not 
so  much  in  actual  hours  gained  for  other  work  as  it  is  a 
saving  in  gas  used,  in  watching  and  worrying  for  fear 
food  will  burn  and  in  added  tastiness  of  many  foods  pre- 
pared by  this  method.  For  these  reasons  its  use  should 
add  to  the  value  of  the  housewife's  time. 


83 


SECTION  XXIV 
SKILL  AND  PLEASURE  IN  HOUSEHOLD  WORK 

HAVING  considered  in  some  detail  the  time  spent 
in  the  various  branches  of  household  work,  we  must 
consider  two  other  factors :  the  skill  with  which  the  work 
is  performed  and  the  pleasure  experienced  while  doing 
it.  The  former  could  be  satisfactorily  ascertained  only 
by  first  establishing  definite  standards  and  then  testing 
each  housewife  thereby.  As  a  matter,  therefore,  of 
interest  rather  than  exact  value  we  submit  the  replies  to 
Section  15,  wherein,  after  the  hours  of  work  have  been 
estimated,  the  housewife  is  asked  to  record  her  skill  and 
pleasure  in  doing  each  line  of  work.  Since  the  answers 
are  in  each  case  the  opinion  of  the  housewife  regarding 
her  own  skill  they  do  not  have  the  value  which  would 
attach  to  the  consensus  of  opinion  of  several  friends  or 
even  of  the  rest  of  the  family. 


84 


SKILL  AND  PLEASURE  IN  HOUSEHOLD  WORK 

SKILL  PLEASURE 

E.    G.     F.    P.    V.   K.   P.      I.    D.   S. 
Food— Purchasing    25     13      1      1      0    11    21      6      2      1 


Cooking    

21 

15 

0      1 

11 

22 

4 

2 

0 

Serving    

10 

21 

3 

8 

11 

14 

3 

0 

Washing  dishes  

15 

14 

2 

2 

5 

12 

6 

7 

Clothing  —  Purchasing  .  . 

18 

16 

3 

13 

18 

6 

0 

0 

Making    

14 

12 

6 

13 

16 

3 

1 

0 

Repairing    

17 

15 

3 

5 

11 

15 

7 

0 

Washing    

9 

10 

2 

3 

6 

11 

4 

1 

Ironing    

12 

9 

2 

2 

10 

10 

3 

2 

Care  of   

19 

12 

2 

4 

15 

13 

2 

0 

House  —  Cleaning,   daily. 

21 

16 

1 

5 

22 

11 

0 

1 

Cleaning,  weekly  .  .  . 

20 

15 

0 

4 

18 

11 

1 

1 

Care  of   

18 

13 

0 

4 

20 

9 

0 

0 

Children  —  Care  of  

15 

8 

2 

11 

11 

3 

0 

0 

Oversight  of   

10 

8 

1 

7 

10 

1 

0 

0 

Entertaining    

11 

12 

1      1 

9 

15 

1 

0 

0 

Management    

17 

10 

4 

11 

17 

2 

3 

0 

272  219    33      3         123  248  132    34    13 

E.  =  excellent ;  G.  =  good ;  F.  =  fair ;  P.  =  poor ;  V.  =  very 
poor;  K.  =  keen  enjoyment;  P.  =  pleasure;  I.  =  indifference ; 
D.  =  dislike ;  S.  =  strong  dislike. 

The  numbers  under  each  heading,  as  "purchasing  food,"  etc., 
should  add  up  to  60,  but  not  all  the  housewives  recorded  their 
skill  or  pleasure. 

The  first  point  to  note  is  the  large  total  of  house- 
wives judging  themselves  "excellent"  in  housekeeping 
skill  compared  with  less  than  half  as  many  points  re- 
corded under  "keen  enjoyment."  This  may  indicate  that 
many  housewives  are  working  from  a  sense  of  duty 
rather  than  with  joy  in  their  work,  and  it  is  possible  that 
a  housewife's  pride  in  the  performance  of  her  duty  has 
colored  her  judgment  regarding  her  skill. 

Taking  up  the  detailed  classification  we  find  that  as 
regards  food  purchase,  out  of  forty  housekeepers,  twenty- 
five  think  that  they  are  "excellent"  in  this  line  of  work, 
half  as  many  rate  themselves  as  "good,"  while  only  one 
admits  being  "fair"  and  one,  "poor." 

85 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

Yet  should  not  an  "excellent"  purchaser  of  food  be 
equal  in  skill  to  a  professional?  What  else  would  A-l 
signify?  We  will  take  one  of  the  housewives  who 
recorded  herself  as  an  excellent  purchaser  of  food  and 
rate  her  according  to  her  ability  as  ascertained  by  a  care- 
ful analysis  of  the  elements  involved  in  food  purchase.  In 
making  such  an  estimate  it  is  quite  as  important  that  we 
consider  not  only  the  ability  of  the  housewife  but  her 
customary  practise. 


86 


SKILL  AND  PLEASURE  IN  HOUSEHOLD  WORK 
SKILL  IN  PURCHASE  OF  FOOD 

Rating  of 
Value  in      House- 
Points  wife 

1.  Knowledge    of    food    values    required    for 

children,  for  adults;  for  headworkers, 
for  muscleworkers ;  for  healthy,  for  sick ; 
for  winter,  for  summer  25  5 

2.  Knowledge  of  food  values  in  given  foods 

to  enable  one  to  buy  the  largest  total  of 
protein,  starches,  carbohydrates  and 
mineral  salts,15  for  amount  of  money  ex- 
pended    25  3 

3.  Knowledge    and   practise    of    buying   when 

foods   can   be   secured   most   reasonably; 

seasonal  buying  6  5 

4.  Buying  in  such  quantities  as  to  secure  low- 

est  rate    5  3 

5.  Careful  planning  so  that  staple  goods  are 

always  on  hand  and  meals  are  not  de- 
layed waiting  for  late  orders  to  arrive..  5  1 

6.  Purchase  in  such  a  way  as  to  give  most 

pleasing  variety  to   members   of    family, 

consistent  with   above   principles    5  4 

7.  Buying    according    to    budget;    displaying 

knowledge  of  how  much  the  family  can 
afford  to  spend  on  food,  keeping  within 
this  allowance  yet  not  stinting  more  than 
necessary  6  6 

8.  Checking   off   goods    received    and    careful 

inspection  of  them  to  see  that  they  are 
up  to  standard  paid  for,  including  weigh- 
ing and  measuring,  when  desirable,  and 
reporting  short  weight  to  proper  authori- 
ties    5  4 

9.  Reasonable    knowledge    of    food    adultera- 

tions and  how  to  detect  them ;  reporting 
to  proper  authorities  all  suspicious 

articles    10  5 

10.  Buying  expeditiously,  using  phone  or  tak- 
ing trip  to  market  or  whatever  method 
experience  proves  to  bring  a  maximum 
result  for  a  minimum  of  time  8  7 

"TOO  43 

18  For  great  importance  of  the  mineral  salts  see  the  excellent 
work  by  Dr.  Sherman,  "Chemistry  of  Food  and  Nutrition,"  Chap- 
ter X,  "Inorganic  Foodstuffs  and  the  Mineral  Metabolism,"  1913. 

87 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

This  analysis  shows  that  the  housewife  who  considered 
herself  A-l  as  a  purchaser  of  food,  by  the  above  rating 
should  be  recorded  as  only  "fair." 

Returning  to  the  analysis  of  the  table  on  page  85  we 
find  twenty-one  excellent  cooks  and  fifteen  good  ones, 
with  none  rating  themselves  as  fair  and  only  one  poor. 
This  may  indicate  the  housewife's  pride  in  her  profession 
more  nearly  than  it  would  her  actual  ability  in  this  line 
if  tested  by  a  standard  such  as  the  following: 


SKILL  IN  COOKING  Rating  of 

Value  in      House- 
Points  wife 

1.  Planning  menus  adapted  to  the  needs  and 

preferences  of  individual  members  of  the 
family  as  regards  food  value,  variety  and 
wholesomeness  12  8 

2.  Use  of  left-overs  4  2 

3.  Preparation  of  food : 

1.  Economical    4  4 

2.  Properly    combining    ingredients 4  3 

3.  Accuracy  in  measurements    4  2 

4.  Variety  in   methods    2  1 

5.  Seasoning  and  flavoring  4  4 

6.  Garnishing    2  1 

—    20    —    15 

4.  Knowledge  of  heat  required  for  foods  to  be 

cooked  in  order  to  have: 

1.  Flavor  preserved. 

2.  Food-value  retained. 

3.  Wholesomeness    20  16 

5.  Ability  to  economically  obtain  or  use  re- 

quired    heat      from     range      (including 

building  a  fire  if  coal  or  wood  is  used) . .  6  5 

6.  Having  food  always  at  right  temperature..  4  3 

7.  Routing  work: 

1.  Knowledge  of  time  required  to  pre- 

pare and  cook  food. 

2.  Punctuality. 

3.  Saving  steps. 

4.  Working  so  as  to  use  fewest  possible 

utensils    10  7 


SKILL  AND  PLEASURE  IN  HOUSEHOLD  WORK 

8.  Care  of  utensils  4  4 

9.  Sanitary  handling  of  food  8  7 

10.  Speed    8  3 

11.  Ease  with  which  housewife  works  4  3 

100  73 

The  table  on  page  85  indicates  that  twice  as  many 
housewives  rated  themselves  excellent  in  cooking  as  there 
were  those  who  acknowledged  keen  enjoyment  in  the 
work,  and  whereas  only  one  woman  rated  her  skill  as  a 
cook  below  that  of  "good,"  six  were  indifferent  to  or 
disliked  the  work.  Half  as  many  housewives  rate  them- 
selves excellent  in  serving  as  in  cooking  while  the  pleasure 
is  about  the  same  in  both  these  activities.  Note  that 
strong  dislike  is  mentioned  more  frequently  for  dish- 
washing than  for  all  other  lines  of  work  combined; 
enjoyment  and  pleasure  are  the  least  frequently  men- 
tioned. Yet  no  housewife  admits  being  poor  in  skillfully 
handling  this  work. 

In  the  case  of  clothing  the  skill  in  purchasing,  making 
and  repairing  are  all  rated  about  equally,  with  slightly 
more  skill  claimed  in  repairing  than  in  making.  The 
enjoyment  in  repairing  clothing  is  markedly  less  frequent 
than  in  making,  while  the  dislike  is  greater  than  for  any 
work  except  dishwashing.  The  records  show,  also,  much 
skill  but  little  pleasure  in  the  care  of  clothing.  Skill  is 
about  equally  divided  between  excellent  and  good  in 
washing  and  ironing,  as  it  is  likewise  between  pleasure 
and  indifference,  while  keen  enjoyment  is  almost  lacking. 
Any  housekeeping  arrangement,  therefore,  which  will 
banish  the  dishwashing,  mending  basket  and  "blue  Mon- 
day" would  seem  to  clear  the  housewife's  horizon  of  most 
of  the  clouds. 


89 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

In  the  care  and  cleaning  of  the  house  there  are  only 
two  housewives  who  admit  that  they  dislike  this  work  or 
are  not  good  at  it. 

More  mothers  believe  themselves  excellent  in  the  care 
of  children  than  in  teaching  and  entertaining  them.  It 
is  noteworthy  to  find  also  that  more  record  themselves  as 
having  pleasure  rather  than  keen  enjoyment  in  their  rela- 
tions with  their  offspring.  Only  three,  however,  admit 
indifference  in  this  regard. 

In  "management"  seventeen  housewives  claim  to  be 
excellent,  ten  good  and  four  fair,  while  on  the  other  hand 
the  eleven  having  keen  enjoyment  in  this  work  are  ex- 
ceeded by  the  seventeen  who  have  only  pleasure,  two  are 
indifferent,  three  admit  dislike. 

Here  again,  as  in  the  case  of  cooking,  family  pride  and 
inability  to  see  ourselves  as  others  see  us,  coupled  with  a 
lack  of  definite  standards,  might  lead  a  housewife  to 
overestimate  her  abilities.  If  we  judge  the  manager  of  a 
home  by  the  same  standards  with  which  we  judge  the 
manager  of  a  business  those  recorded  A-l  might  dwindle 
surprisingly  and  even  many  of  the  good  be  rated  fair, 
while  the  poor  column  might  not  be  omitted. 

Finally,  the  total  points  in  each  column  are  of  interest. 
Excellence  in  doing  housework,  as  noted  above,  is  claimed 
more  than  twice  as  frequently  as  is  keen  enjoyment, 
whereas  there  are  forty-seven  points  credited  to  dislike 
and  strong  dislike  and  only  three  to  poor  skill.  No 
housewife  rates  her  ability  in  any  line  of  housework  as 
very  poor. 

This  brings  us  to  the  point  raised  in  Query  36,  "Do 
you  feel  that  you  get  a  satisfaction  out  of  household  work 
because  you  are  doing  it  for  your  family,  which  you 
would  not  feel  if  you  were  doing  the  same  work  pro- 

90 


SKILL  AND  PLEASURE  IN  HOUSEHOLD  WORK 

fessionally  for  a  salary?"  To  this  every  housewife 
replied  "yes,"  except  one  who  "can  hardly  say,"  and  one 
other  who  says  "yes,"  but  adds,  "Yet  at  the  end  woman 
has  nothing  for  herself,  no  money — nothing  but  just  the 
'glory'  of  bearing  children  and  scrubbing  and  being  an 
unpaid  'slave !' " 

To  ascertain  whether  housewives  look  upon  their  work 
as  a  duty  to  be  performed  rather  than  as  a  joyful  occu- 
pation, Query  34  asks,  "If  you  had  a  choice  would  you 
prefer  household  work  to  any  other  profession  and  why  ?" 
One-third  (twenty  families)  answered  "no."  Two  say 
that  housework  is  hard  and  confining ;  others  remark  that 
"it  is  too  monotonous" ;  "it  is  too  hard  work  for  no  pay" ; 
"it  is  necessary  to  know  so  many  things  and  it  cannot  be 
neglected  ever" ;  "I  was  not  educated  for  the  work" ;  "I 
hate  it  thoroughly." 

Those  who  choose  housework  give  as  reasons :  "Love 
of  home" ;  "it  is  truly  woman's  work  and  I  enjoy  it  more 
than  anything  else";  "suitable  to  a  woman";  "because  I 
am  happy" ;  "because  of  the  children" ;  "variety  is  pleas- 
ing and  it  makes  the  home" ;  "like  home,  dislike  to  go  out 
to  work";  "as  a  mother,  yes;  as  a  wage  earner,  no"; 
"because  I  know  most  about  it" ;  "because  I  know  a  little 
about  it  and  would  like  to  know  more." 

Asked,  under  Query  35,  which  line  of  household  work 
would  be  chosen  if  they  were  to  specialize,  the  housewives 
replied:  Cooking  food,  eighteen;  management,  nine; 
purchasing  food,  three;  serving,  four;  house  cleaning, 
three ;  care  of  children,  three ;  sewing,  two ;  "laundering," 
one ;  ironing,  one. 

Those  housewives  who  in  answer  to  Query  34  stated 
that  they  did  not  prefer  housework,  were  asked,  "What 

91 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

lines  of  work  would  you  prefer  ?"18  Replies  were :  Seven, 
teachers;  three,  music;  three,  dressmaking;  two,  matron 
of  institution;  one,  library  work;  three,  gardening;  one, 
arts  and  crafts;  one,  clerical  work;  two,  architecture; 
two,  professional  work ;  two,  social  worker ;  two,  literary 
work;  one,  law;  one,  medicine. 

The  next  question  is,  "Have  you  done  or  are  you  doing 
any  work  for  which  you  received  or  are  receiving  a 
salary?"  Only  one  claimed  to  be  engaged  in  other  work 
than  housework  at  present  and  that  woman  is  running  a 
farm  since  the  death  of  her  husband.  Ten  had  been 
engaged  in  a  gainful  occupation  before  marriage;  five, 
teaching;  two,  dressmaking;  one,  settlement  work;  one, 
business,  and  one,  factory  inspection. 


16  Frederick,  Christine,  "The  New  Housekeeping."  "Multitudes 
of  women  have  an  attitude  of  mere  tolerance  toward  housework 
— preferring  business  or  other  careers,  looking  impatiently  and 
contemptuously  on  all  housework,  hoping  to  be  relieved  of  it 
entirely  some  day,  and  exchange  it  for  something  'more  inter- 
esting.' " 

92 


SECTION  XXV 
EDUCATION  IN  HOUSEHOLD  SCIENCE 

FIFTY-TWO  of  the  sixty  housewives  reporting  have 
not  taken  courses  of  training  in  household  work  in 
any  school,  nor  have  had  private  paid  lessons.  (Query 
37.)  Eight,  however,  reply:  "Short  courses  during 
winter  months" ;  "learned  by  studying  magazines  and  by 
asking  authorities" ;  "taught  at  home  by  mother" ;  "read 
magazines  and  daily  papers" ;  "yes,  Boston,  three  years" ; 
"various  schools,  including  studies  in  Vienna" ;  "one  year 
in  cooking  school";  "short  courses  but  mainly  years  of 
experience." 

It,  therefore,  appears  that  only  five  out  of  sixty  house- 
wives have  had  schooling  in  household  science.  The 
general  inclusion  of  this  subject  in  the  school  curriculum 
is  now  rapidly  taking  the  place  of  instruction  by  parents 
or  the  learning  by  costly  experience  after  starting  house- 
keeping. There  is  an  increasing  tendency  to  favor  teach- 
ing this  science  less  from  the  book  in  sample  doses  and 
more  by  practical  work  in  preparing  real  meals  in  con- 
nection with  school  lunch  rooms  and  college  dormitories. 
Still  better  is  the  plan  for  young  women  on  graduating 
from  grammar  school  to  work  their  way  through  high 
school  by  working  part  time  at  their  chosen  profession 
and  part  time  in  book  study,  thus  relieving  their  parents 
of  an  unnecessary  financial  burden  and  improving, 
usually,  the  sturdy  character  of  the  young  women.  This 

93 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

can  be  done  in  household  science  courses  quite  as  readily 
as  in  commercial  courses.17 

Fifty  housewives  are  not  members  of  any  club  or  asso- 
ciation which  devotes  at  least  part  of  its  time  to  house- 
hold affairs.  (Query  39.)  Only  two  reported  that  they 
are  members  of  the  American  Home  Economics  Associa- 
tion, the  national  organization  which  specially  studies 
household  problems.  Only  two  housewives  subscribe  to 
the  Journal  of  Home  Economics,  the  official  publication 
of  the  above  organization.18 

A  list  of  twenty  standard  publications  of  interest  to 
housewives  was  given  under  Query  38  with  a  request 
that  a  mark  be  placed  under  each  one  read.  The  authors 
most  widely  read,  outside  of  cook  books,  were :  Richards, 
Oilman,  Mason  and  Salmon. 


"The  William  Perm  High  School,  Philadelphia,  has  arranged 
with  a  department  store  to  carry  out  a  plan  of  part  work  in  the 
store  on  salary  and  part  study  in  salesmanship  courses. 

"1211  Cathedral  Street,  Baltimore,  Md. 


94 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  VALUE  OF  HOUSEHOLD  WORK 


SECTION  I 
THEORY  OF  VALUE 

IN  the  previous  chapter  we  have  discussed  the  amount 
of  household  work.  Its  value  is  quite  as  intricate  a 
problem.  In  an  excellent  statement  of  "The  Value  of 
Woman's  Work,"  the  writer  says:1  "It  is  obvious  that 
to  speculate  on  the  value  of  woman's  work  in  terms  of 
wages  is  idle,  for  she  is  not  living  under  the  wages  sys- 
tem. The  work  of  running  a  household  involves  the  prac- 
tise of  a  number  of  skilled  trades,  requires  the  use  of 
much  unskilled  labor  and  demands  some  administrative 
power.  To  rate  this  combination  of  trades  and  effort 
with  its  undetermined  labor-time  would  be  an  appalling 
task.  But  it  is  a  task  we  need  not  undertake,  for  the 
work  of  the  housekeeper  who  is  also  the  wife  is  not 
exchangeable  and,  therefore,  can  have  no  real  money 
value." 

With  this  view  we  cannot  concur.  It  is  a  common 
saying  that  a  mother's  value  is  "inestimable";  it  is 
objected  by  others  that  to  attempt  to  value  the  services 
of  a  wife  is  undesirable  because  the  sacred  relations 
between  husband  and  wife  would  be  lowered  if  they 
were  reduced  to  a  financial  basis.  Those  who  take  this 
position  fail  to  distinguish  between  a  woman  as  wife 
and  as  housewife.  One  readily  differentiates  the  work 
done  by  a  man  as  farmer  from  his  services  as  a  father 
and  husband.  Just  because  he  steps  out  of  the  house  to 


1  Maud  Thompson  in  "International  Socialist  Review,"  Decem- 
ber, 1909. 

97 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

work  is  no  reason  why  a  money  value  should  be  given 
to  his  work  and  no  such  recognition  be  given  to  his  wife's 
labors.  But  the  point  is  made  by  Miss  Thompson  that 
woman's  work  cannot  be  rated  in  terms  of  "real  money 
value"  because  its  products  are  not  "exchangeable." 
This  test,  however,  does  not  cover  all  services  for  which 
wages  are  paid.  A  gardener  is  paid  real  money  for  his 
day's  work,  yet  the  product  of  his  work  in  cutting  grass, 
sweeping  walks  and  driveways  does  not  come  into  the 
market.  A  woman  is  paid  money  wages  for  a  day's 
work  in  cleaning  a  house,  yet  the  product  of  that  labor 
is  not  exchangeable.  If  the  labor  of  a  house  worker  is 
paid  for  in  real  money  there  is  no  reason  why,  when  a 
housewife  discharges  her  assistant,  and  takes  her  place, 
her  own  efforts  should  not  be  considered  as  having  a 
money  value.2  Several  theories  regarding  the  valuation 
of  the  housewife's  work  have  been  suggested. 

Is  not  the  value  of  a  housewife's  labors  measured  by 
the  living  which  she  is  getting?  In  many  cases  the 
income  of  male  workers  is  not  paid  in  money  but  "in 
kind,"  in  whole  or  in  part.  A  farmhand  is  paid  a  certain 
sum  in  cash  wages  and  also  receives  his  board  and 
lodging.  Sometimes  work  is  done  on  shares  and  the 
income  is  one-half  of  the  product.  The  wages  a  man 
receives  is  his  money  income ;  what  he  can  buy  in  food, 
clothing  and  shelter  with  his  wages  is  his  real  income. 
The  latter  will  vary  widely  in  different  parts  of  the 
country.3  If  the  husband  and  wife,  when  they  marry, 
enter  into  an  economic  partnership  to  share  and  share 


2  The  economist  Senior  expresses  the  same  view. 

3  Hence  a  difficulty  pointed  out  by  Prof.   Streightoff.     If  we 
add  together  the  wages  paid  in  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Atlanta 
and  other  cities  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  we  can  get  a 
total  of  money  income,  but  a  mere  jumble  as  regards  the  real 
income  of  the  working  class. 


THEORY  OF  VALUE 

alike,4  then  the  wife  will  get  an  equal  amount  of  food, 
clothing,  shelter  and  spending  money  with  her  husband, 
therefore,  her  real  income  will  be  the  same  as  his.  Now, 
if  the  husband  buys  one-half  of  his  wife's  products  with 
one-half  of  his  income  that  determines  the  money  value 
of  her  income.  To  say  that  household  work  has  no  real 
money  value  because  the  products  of  the  work  of  the 
housewife  are  not  exchangeable5  overlooks  the  actual 
fact  that  these  products  do  come  into  a  market  and  are 
exchangeable,  but  under  monopoly  conditions.6  The 
housewife  sells  one-half  of  her  products  to  her  husband. 
If  the  husband  receives  an  income  of  $2,400  and  pays 
his  wife  one-half  of  it  for  her  services,  then  the  other 
half  of  her  services  must  be  worth  as  much  more.  The 
family  budget  will,  therefore,  stand  thus: 

Receipts  Expenditures 

Husband's  income   $2,400      Husband  pays  wife $1,200 

Wife,    cash    from    hus-  Husband      expends      on 

band    1,200         budget    1,200 

Wife,     value    of     other  Wife   expends    cash   re- 
half  of  her  services..    1,200          ceived    1,200 

Wife  contributes  in  serv- 

$4,800         ices    1,200 

While  the  household  budget  is:  $4,800 

Expenditures 

Receipts                         Food $720 

Cash  from  husband $1,200      Clothing    360 

Cash  from  wife   1,200      Shelter   480 

Services  valued  at 2,400      Operation    480 

Salary  to  housewife   . . .  2,400 

$4,800      Advancement,      sundries 

and  savings   360 


$4,800 

*  An  interesting  catch  question  is  this :  If  a  woman's  efforts 
are  worth  as  much  as  a  man's,  and  a  housewife  works  as  many 
hours  as  her  husband,  if  he  pays  her  the  full  value  of  her  labor 
what  has  he  left  for  himself? 

5  See  page  101,  infra. 

6  See  page  102,  infra. 

99 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

The  fallacy  in  this  argument  is  two-fold.  First,  the 
wife  takes  the  food  provided  by  the  husband,  adds  her 
labors  to  the  product  of  his,  and  then  both  equally  share 
the  combined  product.  If  her  efforts  add  as  much  value 
as  he  contributed  then  the  family  income  is  doubled,  but 
if  her  efforts  add  only  one-half  as  much  value  as  his, 
then  the  husband  has  a  real  income  of  only  three-quarters 
what  he  would  have  enjoyed  as  a  bachelor.  If  the  hus- 
band earns  only  one  dollar  a  day  and  the  wife's  work  is 
worth  two  dollars  a  day  then  each  get  a  real  income 
equal  to  one  dollar  and  a  half  a  day.  Secondly,  what 
obscures  the  economic  factors  in  this  exchange  is  this, — 
the  husband  pays  his  wife  with  half  (or  a  part)  of  his 
income  not  only  for  her  housewifely  labors  but  for  her 
beauty  and  charm  and  because  social  custom  makes  him 
feel  that  he  should  share  evenly  with  one  who  has  agreed 
to  share  evenly  with  him.  And  the  wife  gives  accord- 
ingly. How  much  of  his  salary,  therefore,  is  paying  for 
her  household  services  cannot  be  determined  by  the  fact 
that  he  gives  her  half,  for  part  pays  for  cooking  and 
scrubbing  and  part  pays  for  love.  If  the  cooking  is  bad 
but  the  loving  good  the  home  may  be  happy.  If  love  is 
little  but  the  cooking  excellent  the  home  may  be  endur- 
able. But  if  both  are  lacking  then  we  have  a  tragedy. 
And  the  same  is  true  if  the  wife  gives  of  her  best  efforts 
and  the  husband  brings  home  little  and  loves  less.  So  in 
the  happy  home  there  is  more  than  an  economic  ex- 
change; there  is  the  payment  not  only  in  services  and 
cash,  but  also  "in  kind."  That  the  latter  may  be  inesti- 
mable, we  grant. 

If  this  distinction  be  true  then  the  question  may  fairly 
be  raised  whether  a  woman  who  is  spoken  of  as  a  "para- 
site" by  economists  because  she  toils  not  neither  does  she 
spin,  may  give  other  values  for  which  a  man  gladly  sup- 

100 


THEORY  OF  VALUE 


ports  her.  Why  should  a  lovely  woman  of  radiant  per- 
sonality be  rated  as  a  "dependent"  of  some  man  because 
she  does  not  cook  and  scrub,  while  a  singer  is  considered 
an  economic  producer? 

What  a  husband  gives  his  wife,  therefore,  reflects  the 
earning  power  of  the  husband.  A  woman  may  be  a 
blunderingly  incompetent  housewife,  yet  if  her  husband 
is  a  good  worker  she  may  live  in  ease  and  luxury.  On 
the  other  hand,  no  matter  how  excellent  she  may  be  as  a 
cook  and  general  manager  if  her  husband  is  incompetent 
she  may  live  in  as  great  want  and  misery  as  the  sloven- 
liest breadwinner  in  shop  or  factory.  Here  is  where  the 
houseworker  has  an  advantage;  when  she  sells  her  labor 
if  the  purchaser  cannot  pay  a  good  wage  she  is  at  liberty 
to  try  another  "place."  Not  so  the  wife.  Her  bargain  is 
for  life — she  has  bargained7  to  exchange  her  labor,  not 
for  a  day,  but  for  a  life-time. 

For  the  products  of  a  wife's  efforts  in  cleaning  house, 
preparing  food,  making,  mending  and  washing  clothes 
there  is  only  one  buyer,  the  husband  ;8  and  when  the  man 
comes  to  exchange  his  money  for  goods  in  this  line  there 
is  only  one  seller,  the  wife. 

This  is  a  condition  of  monopoly.  When  people  lived 
in  tribal  groups  this  condition  did  not  exist;  neither  did 


7  The  husband  and  wife  do  not  usually  make  a  definite  agree- 
ment as  to  how  the  cash  income  is  to  be  divided,  but  custom 
makes  an  economic  relationship  inhere  in  the  marriage  relation- 
ship;  moreover,  the  courts  will  enforce  a  division  of  income. 

8  She  may  work  for  herself  instead  of  preparing  goods   for 
"the  market"  (her  husband),  but  this  is  likely  to  lead  to  trouble, 
for   the   buyer   in    this    case    usually   considers    not   that   he   is 
entitled  to  an  amount  of  her  products  equivalent  to  his  product, 
but  that  he  has  purchased  all  her  time  by  the  marriage  contract ; 
she  does  not  usually  feel  this  way  towards  him.     Sometimes, 
however,  especially  when  his  earnings  are  small,  he  encourages 
her  to  make  a  little  "pin  money." 

101 


THE.  HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

it  exist  in  the  patriarchal  family ;  nor  does  it  exist  in  the 
large  establishments  of  the  present  day,  such  as  hotels 
and  boarding  houses,  where  there  are  many  parties  to 
the  exchange  and  if  a  man  does  not  like  the  product  of 
the  hotel  cook  he  can  obtain  the  product  of  another  just 
as,  in  purchasing  food,  he  can  change  from  one  store  to 
another.9  But  when  the  wife  does  the  household  work 
there  is  a  monopoly  condition  and  mankind  has  always 
chafed  under  these  terms. 

Because  a  couple  agree  to  assume  a  monopoly  contract 
as  regards  the  production  of  children  is  no  reason  why 
they  should  accept  a  monopoly  condition  for  other 
products  unless  they  choose  to  isolate  themselves  in  a 
frontier  existence  where  the  household  must  needs  pro- 
duce what  it  consumes  and  consume  what  it  produces. 
This,  however,  makes  for  a  static  condition  and  human 
progress  ceases.  The  larger  the  field  for  the  exercise  of 
free  choice  the  greater  the  dynamic  force  toward 
progress. 

One  of  the  principal  causes  for  the  failure  of  many 
marriages  is  found  in  the  fact  that  a  love  match  has 
ended  in  an  economic  partnership  for  life,  wherein  the 
results  of  the  labors  of  the  man  and  woman  are  con- 
trolled by  the  law  of  monopoly.  The  fact  that,  in  spite 
of  this  difficulty,  love  is  often  strong  enough  to  prevent 
the  development  of  a  tragedy  does  not  remove  the  diffi- 
culty. True,  there  should  be  such  mutual  affection  that 
no  marriage  bonds  are  broken,  but  there  also  should  be 
no  succession  of  soggy  pies  and  burnt  steaks  to  put  a 
strain  upon  affection.  Minimizing  a  disruptive  force  may 


8  One  is  reminded  of  the  dyspeptic,  who,  when  informed  by  his 
physician  that  he  should  change  his  cook,  replied,  "I  can't  do  it, 
doctor,  I'm  married  to  her!" 

102 


THEORY  OF  VALUE 

be  as  important  a  step  in  social  progress  as  magnifying 
a  unifying  agency. 

Having  considered  these  various  methods  of  valuing 
woman's  household  work  (including  Mrs.  Oilman's  idea 
of  vicarious  value,  referred  to  on  page  27,  supra.),  we 
return  to  the  idea  expressed  on  page  98,  that  the  house- 
wife's work  can  best  be  valued  as  that  of  any  other 
worker,  namely,  by  what  she  would  have  to  pay  to  obtain 
someone  else  to  do  the  same  work,  or  by  what  she  could 
obtain  if  she  hired  out  to  someone  else  to  do  the  same 
work  as  an  employee.10  Here  a  caution  is  necessary. 
Many  have  argued  that  if  a  woman  before  marriage  has 
been,  let  us  suppose,  a  schoolteacher  earning  a  salary  of 
$1,200,  therefore,  when  she  marries,  her  labors  are  worth 
$1,200  because  that  is  her  earning  capacity.  This,  how- 
ever, is  a  fallacy,  for  the  value  of  a  person's  efforts  in 
one  line  of  work  is  not  a  measure  of  the  value  of  other 
activities  of  the  same  person.  If  every  man  and  woman 
were  employed  in  that  form  of  productive  activity  for 
which  each  is  best  fitted  the  world  would  be  much  richer 
than  it  now  is.11  As  a  general  rule  no  other  productive 
activities  of  normal  men  and  women  are  as  valuable  to 
society  as  parenthood. 


10  Seager,  "Principles  of  Economics,"  page  174. 
"Chapter  IV,  page  116,  infra. 

103 


SECTION  II 
THE  HOUSEWORKER'S  WAGES 

BEFORE  atttempting  to  place  a  valuation  upon  the 
work  of  the  housewife  it  will  be  well  to  ascertain 
how  much  is  customarily  paid  for  the  productive  efforts 
of  the  houseworker,  usually  referred  to  as  a  servant.12 

In  Prof.  Lucy  M.  Salmon's  authoritative  work  on 
"Domestic  Service"13  she  finds  that  "the  general  servant 
who  is  expected  to  unite  in  herself  all  the  functions  of 
all  the  other  employees  becomes,  on  account  of  this  fact, 
an  unskilled  worker,  and,  therefore,  receives  the  lowest 
wages,  whereas  it  is  the  skilled  laborer — the  cook — who 
commands  the  highest  wages." 

The  most  comprehensive  attempt  by  any  government 
authority  in  the  United  States  to  investigate  domestic 
service  was  made  in  1910  by  the  Commissioner  of  Labor 
of  the  State  of  Maine.1*  Schedules  of  twenty  questions 
were  sent  to  1,500  families  and  replies  received  from  291. 
"Replies  far  exceeded  in  number  and  completeness  any- 
thing of  the  sort  ever  attempted  in  other  States." 


"In  old  English,  "servant"  was  a  term  generally  applied  to 
any  employee,  his  employer  being  spoken  of  as  "master."  The 
word  at  present  conveys  an  idea  of  servility,  and  generally  sig- 
nifies domestic  servants. 

18  First  edition,  1897,  pages  88-9. 

""The  Household  Servant  Problem  in  Maine,"  in  Report  of 
Industrial  and  Labor  Statistics. 

104 


THE  HOUSEWORKER'S  WAGES 

The  number  of  servants  employed  in  the  families  inves- 
tigated was  333.  The  weekly  wages  were  as  follows : 

Wages  No.  of  Families 

$2.00  5 

2.50  14 

3.00  48 

3.50  38 

4.00  82 

4.50  22 

5.00  48 

5.50  6 

6.00  9 

6.50  1 

7.50  4 

8.00  1 

10.00  1 

The  average  wage  is  about  $4.  This  also  is  by  far 
the  most  frequent  wage;  105  families  pay  less  than  this 
sum,  and  ninety  pay  more.  Three  and  five  dollars  per 
week  tie  for  second  place;  $3.50  ranks  fourth.  The 
families  paying  $3  to  $5  make  up  85  per  cent,  of  all  the 
families.  Four  dollars  a  week  is  $208  a  year.  Board  and 
lodging,  says  the  report,  are  $3.50  in  small  towns  and 
$4.50  in  cities.  If  we  take  the  average,  $4,  this  will 
double  the  above  annual  wage,  making  it  $416. 

Query  19  asks,  "Do  you  employ  domestic  helpers  by 
the  hour?"  One  hundred  and  ninety-seven  reply  "yes," 
and  fifty-two  "no."  The  wages  paid  by  those  employing 
help  by  the  hour  are : 

Wages  per  Hour  No.  of  Families 

10   cents  11 

12^   "  11 

15    "  109 

20    "  64 

25    "  9 

30    "  1 

105 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

The  average  is  16^2  cents  per  hour.  The  most  fre- 
quent is  15  cents.  The  answers  to  the  query,  "How  many 
hours  per  day  is  servant  expected  to  be  on  duty  ?"  are  as 
follows : 

Hours  No.  of  Families 

6  3 

7  8 

8  22 

9  20 

10  32 

11  6 

12  10 

13  12 

14  1 

15  2 
24  1 

Sixty-seven  families  answer,  "as  many  as  the  duties 
require";  six,  "depends  on  the  servant";  one  says,  "if  I 
pay  her  her  price  for  doing  all  my  work  she  is  expected 
to  work  until  it  is  done";  another,  "while  she  is  in  the 
house  she  may  be  called  upon."  The  average  is  ten 
hours  and  this  is  also  by  far  the  most  frequently 
mentioned. 

Now,  if  the  average  hourly  wages,  16^  cents,  be  mul- 
tiplied by  the  average  hours,  ten,  we  get  a  daily  wage  of 
$1.65,  and  (allowing  six  hours  on  Sunday),  a  weekly 
wage  of  about  $10.50.  The  next  most  frequent  number 
of  hours,  eight,  multiplied  by  the  next  most  frequent  pay, 
20  cents,  would  give  nearly  the  same  result.  If  we  take 
ten  hours  a  day  at  15  cents  an  hour  as  the  most  usual 
arrangement,  we  have  $10  a  week.  To  this  should  be 
added,  let  us  say,  $1.25  for  lunches,  these  being  usually 
included  in  the  compensation  for  a  day's  work.  This 
gives  us  a  total  of  $11.25.  This  would  be  about  a  dollar 
and  a  quarter  higher  wages  than  would  be  paid  in  the 
Maine  cities,  if  we  assume  that  the  $5  per  week  wages, 

106 


THE  HOUSEWORKER'S  WAGES 

$4.50  for  board  and  lodging  and  fifty  cents  for  laundry, 
would  be  customary.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  number  of 
hours'  service  is  probably  less  when  one  works  by  the 
hour  than  by  the  week,  while  almost  as  much  work  is 
accomplished  in  the  shorter  time15  so  that  the  actual 
cost  is  likely  to  be  about  the  same  and  might  be  averaged 
at  $10  per  week,  or  $500  for  a  fifty- week  year. 

In  the  United  States  in  190616  the  average  wage  paid 
general  laborers  was  17  cents  an  hour  (the  average 
servant's  wage  in  Maine  inquiry  was  within  half  a  cent 
of  this)  ;  average  hours  per  week  fifty-eight,  giving  a 
weekly  wage  of  $9.86.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  servants 
in  Maine  receive  as  good  wages  as  the  average  unskilled 
male  worker  in  the  United  States. 

Before  leaving  the  subject  of  the  houseworker's  wages 
it  will  be  interesting  to  apply  to  this  special  group  of 
workers  the  principles  mentioned  by  economists  as  deter- 
mining the  wages  of  industrial  workers.  In  the  chapter 
on  wages,  in  Prof.  Seager's  "Principles  of  Economics," 
we  find  mentioned  many  factors  which  determine  wages, 
the  principal  of  which  are : 

1.  Personal  qualities. 

2.  Education  and  training. 

3.  Natural  resources  of  the  country. 

4.  Demand  for  and  supply  of  labor  and  its  products. 

5.  Right  choice  of  work. 

6.  Influence. 

7.  Chance. 

8.  Custom. 


15  Goldmark,  Josephine,  "Fatigue  and  Efficiency." 

16  Bureau  of  Labor  Report.     A  careful  comparative  study  of 
the   wages   of   unskilled   male   labor   and   houseworkers   in   any 
given  part  of  the  country  will  be  of  value.    It  will  probably  show 
very  nearly  an  equal  wage  level. 

107 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

9.  Use  of  capital. 

10.  Organization  by  labor. 

11.  Inertia. 

12.  Length  of  service. 

13.  Standard  of  living. 

14.  Steadiness  of  employment. 

15.  Social  esteem. 

16.  Ability  of  employer. 

Of  these  many  factors,  six  would  seem  to  be  especially 
important  as  determining  the  income  of  houseworkers, 
namely,  the  natural  resources  of  the  country,  which 
largely  determine  what  the  employer  can  afford  to  pay 
(ability  of  employer),  custom,  the  personal  qualities  of 
the  house  worker,  her  education  and  training  (experience) 
and  social  esteem.  Many  housewives  will  acknowledge 
that  their  houseworker's  labors  are  "worth"  $7  a  week 
instead  of  the  $5  which  they  pay,  but  their  income  is 
such  that  if  compelled  to  pay  $7  they  would  preferably 
do  their  own  work.  That  custom17  is  a  large  factor 
is  shown  by  the  fact  that  housewives  will  rather  bitterly 
complain  if  a  neighbor  offers  her  own  house  worker  $7 
a  week  when  they  are  paying  $5  or  $6,  and  this  quite 
irrespective  of  the  value  of  the  service  rendered.  The 
veriest  greenhorn  at  housework  frequently  asks  and 
often  gets  the  same  wage  as  one  who  has  had  a  lifetime 
of  experience.  That  social  esteem,  or  rather  the  lack  of 
it,  is  a  large  factor  in  keeping  up  the  wages  of  house- 
workers  is  generally  admitted.18  Many  would  probably 
enter  this  trade  if  it  were  not  considered  menial.  This 
factor  does  not  affect  the  housewife  as  it  does  the  house- 
worker.  Many  a  man  can  get  a  woman  to  cook  and 

"Adam  Smith  refers  to  this  fact. 
18  Salmon,  "Domestic  Service." 

108 


THE  HOUSEWORKER'S  WAGES 

scrub  for  him  as  his  wife,  although  she  would  not  be 
hired  to  do  similar  work  at  any  wage,  for  custom  sanc- 
tions the  one  as  honorable  and  frowns  upon  the  other. 

An  equally  important  consideration  is  the  personal 
qualities  of  employer  and  employee,  for  when  a  business 
requires  such  intimate  relationships  much  will  depend 
upon  personal  idiosyncrasies  which  make  continual  fric- 
tion. Managers  of  employment  bureaus  have  repeatedly 
stated  that  we  have  no  more  of  a  "servant  problem"  than 
we  have  a  problem  of  the  employer  with  whom  it  is 
difficult  for  anyone  to  get  along. 


109 


SECTION  III 
VALUE  OF  THE  HOUSEWIFE'S  WORK 

THE  conclusion  was  drawn  in  the  last  section  that 
the  wages  of  house  workers  appear  to  be  about  the 
same  as  those  of  unskilled  male  workers  in  the  same 
locality.  As  many  of  these  young  women  marry  and 
keep  house  for  themselves  it  would  seem  to  be  a  reason- 
able conclusion  that  their  labor  when  expended  in  their 
own  home  would  be  as  valuable  as  when  sold  to  a  mis- 
tress. That  the  value  of  the  household  activities  of  the 
average  wife  of  an  unskilled  workman  is  as  great  as  the 
value  of  the  labors  of  those  who  had  formerly  been 
houseworkers  would  probably  be  not  far  from  the  actual 
situation. 

When  we  study,  however,  the  work  of  the  wives  of 
men  of  the  higher  income  groups,  if  we  apply  the  rule 
that  a  housewife's  services  will  be  worth  what  she  could 
earn  doing  the  same  work  for  someone  else  or  what  she 
would  pay  another  woman  for  filling  her  position  as 
housewife,  then  we  find  that  few  housewives  rate  the 
value  of  their  services  as  highly  as  those  of  their  well- 
paid  partners. 

The  answers  given  in  the  household  schedules  to  Query 
36  (second  section),  ""What  do  you  consider  the  value 
in  dollars,  per  month,  of  your  present  work  as  house- 
keeper?" were  as  follows: 


110 


VALUE  OF  THE  HOUSEWIFE'S  WORK 

Value  of  Services  Number  of  Housewives 

$20  4 

25  6 

30  5 

32  1 

35  6 

40  2 

45  1 

50  3 

60  6 

65  1 

70  1 

75  6 

80  2 

100  5 

150  1 

The  average  is  $53 ;  the  median  is  $45  to  $50. 

One  woman  writes,  "As  a  mother  willing  to  do  it 
[household  work]  without  pay;  as  a  housekeeper, 
$50."  It  is  just  this  lack  of  understanding  of  the  fact 
that  no  housewife  is  working  without  pay,  that  everyone 
is  paid  "in  kind"  (the  living  she  gets)  that  makes  this 
inquiry  necessary.  As  the  query  did  not  state  whether 
the  "value  in  dollars"  includes  board  and  lodging,  an 
assumption  that  the  addition  of  a  dollar  a  day  for  this 
would  be  a  reasonable  allowance,  would,  added  to  $50, 
give  $80  per  month  or  $960  per  year. 

The  wives  of  men  of  the  $1,800  to  $2,400  income 
group  would,  however,  if  employed  elsewhere,  very 
generally  be  capable  of  filling  the  positions  of  managing 
housekeepers,  for  although  many  housewives  are  not 
such  clever  housekeepers  as  are  those  who  make  a  pro- 
fession of  this  work  and  many  of  them  also  are  not 
physically  strong  enough  to  do  the  work  which  they 
would  require  of  another  hired  to  fill  a  housekeeper's 
position,  yet,  on  the  other  hand,  many  housewives  produce 
far  more  of  value  in  services  than  they  can  obtain  from 

111 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

hired  workers.  Inquiry  at  employment  agencies18  shows 
that  the  usual  wage  for  this  type  of  service  in  Philadel- 
phia is  from  $30  to  $40  a  month.  The  board,  lodging, 
laundry  and  other  privileges  of  these  employees  are 
valued  at  from  $30  to  $40  monthly,  making  a  total  of 
$60  to  $80  a  month  or  $720  to  $960  yearly.  The  latter 
figure  is  the  same  as  that  found  above  to  be  the  average 
of  the  estimates  of  their  services  made  by  the  housewives 
answering  the  schedule  inquiry. 

These  estimates  cannot  be  accepted  as  conclusive, 
especially  as  averages,  when  applied  to  households  having 
such  widely  varying  conditions,  can  be  only  suggestive. 
The  main  purpose  of  such  an  attempted  average  is  to 
call  attention  insistently  to  the  fact  that  there  is  a  tangible 
economic  value  which  should  be  attached  to  household 
work,  whether  done  by  a  hired  worker  or  by  the  house- 
wife. 


19  Bureau  of  Occupations  for  Trained  Women  and  commercial 
employment  agencies. 

112 


CHAPTER  IV 

HOUSEHOLD  WORK  AS  SPECIALIZED 
GAINFUL  OCCUPATIONS 


HOUSEHOLD  WORK  AS  SPECIALIZED  GAINFUL 
OCCUPATIONS 

WE  start  this  chapter  with  the  proposition  that  a 
normal  family  consists  of  a  man,  wife  and  three 
children,  all  under  the  legal  working  age,  bound  together 
by  ties  of  mutual  affection ;  the  place  in  which  they  reside 
is  a  home.  It  is  just  as  much  home  whether  it  is  on  the 
frontier  where  the  family  supplies  practically  all  its  wants 
directly  by  its  own  labor,  or  whether  the  group  is  resid- 
ing in  an  apartment  hotel  where  its  economic  needs  are 
largely  supplied  in  exchange  for  money.  Thus  we  dis- 
tinguish between  a  home  and  a  household.  In  a  hotel 
each  family  group  makes  a  home  of  the  room  or  rooms 
it  occupies,  there  thus  being  many  homes  in  the  one 
structure,  while  the  whole  aggregate  constitutes  one 
household. 

From  the  standpoint  of  the  economist  we  are  interested 
in  this  family  as  to  whether  it  is  thrifty1  or  thriftless, 
whether  it  is  increasing  its  own,  and  the. social,  surplus,2 
or  whether  it  represents  a  deficit  and,  therefore,  a  reduc- 
tion in  social  capital,  consuming  more  than  it  produces. 
If  the  latter  family  is  poor  it  is  ranked  as  dependent;  if 
rich,  it  is  parasitic — another  form  of  dependency. 


1  Devine,  "Economic  Function  of  Women,"  page  10.     "In  the 
hands  of  its  greatest  masters  economics  has  been  a  theory  of 
prosperity  rather  than  of  value." 

2  See  an  interesting  treatment  of   "The   Conservation   of  the 
Social  Surplus"  in  Patten's  "Theory  of  Prosperity,"  1902,  pages 
41-45.     "The  worth  of  life  is  not  to  be  measured  by  the  utility 
of  goods  consumed,  but  by  [the  social  surplus]  plus  the  pleasure 
of  activity  [joy  in  productive  work]  and  aesthetic  enjoyment  of 
goods." 

115 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

The  same  idea  of  social  well  being,  expressed  as 
surplus  utility  by  the  economist,  becomes  in  the  language 
of  the  sociologist  a  theory  of  progress,  which  has  been 
excellently  defined  by  a  leading  sociologist3  as  follows : 

"Social  progress  consists  in  passing  on  from  one  gen- 
eration to  the  next  all  of  the  good  (wealth,  education, 
culture,  etc.)  received  from  the  preceding  generation, 
and  still  leaving  for  itself  (the  present  generation)  a 
larger  and  a  fuller  life."  The  mother  who,  in  making 
every  sacrifice  for  her  children  stunts  and  narrows  her 
own  life  is  not  aiding  social  progress.  Not  only  is  she 
dwarfing  her  own  life,  but  by  that  very  process  she 
becomes  less  able  to  give  inspiration  and  a  broad  outlook 
to  those  who  are  supposed  to  be  benefiting  by  her  self- 
effacing  sacrifices. 

A  number  of  writers  on  household  management  are 
of  the  opinion  that  few  if  any  changes  in  our  industrial 
system  would  so  accentuate  economic  and  social  progress 
as  would  the  complete  separation  of  the  home  and  eco- 
nomic production — in  other  words,  the  removal  of  prac- 
tically all  productive  work  from  the  home.  This  work 
could  then  be  divided  up  into  specialized  occupations, 
such  as  cooking,  sewing,  laundering  and  cleaning.  There 
would  then  be  the  chance  for  a  woman  to  choose  which 
occupation  she  prefers  or  she  would  have  the  opportunity 
to  do  some  entirely  different  work  if  her  talents  lie  in 
the  direction  of  literature  or  art.  When  housework 
becomes  standardized  and  professionalized  we  may 
expect  to  find  it  far  more  efficiently  done  than  at  pres- 
ent.4 Not  only  will  the  individual  specialized  worker 
tend  to  turn  out  a  larger  and  a  better  product,  but  there 


8  Prof.  Franklin  H.  Giddings. 

*  Oilman,  Charlotte  Perkins,  "Woman  and  the  Home." 

116 


AS  SPECIALIZED  GAINFUL  OCCUPATIONS 

will  be  an  enormous  saving  of  time  and  materials  in 
having  the  meals  for  a  hundred  families  prepared  in  one 
kitchen  instead  of  in  a  hundred  kitchens.5 

So  much  has  already  been  written  concerning  the 
advantages  of  professionalizing  household  work,  that  it 
is  not  necessary  to  elaborate  these  views.6  It  is  worth 
our  while,  however,  to  consider  what  will  be  the  probable 
effect  upon  the  woman  and  upon  the  family. 

Many  economists  today  hold  that  the  development  of 
human  beings  follows  the  law  of  economic  determinism, 
that  is,  that  the  conditions  under  which  we  earn  our  daily 
bread  determine  our  religion,  our  morals,  our  art, 
indeed,  our  whole  business  and  social  life.  If,  then, 
there  is  a  revolutionary  change  in  our  methods  of  bread- 
winning,  there  will  inevitably  result  alterations  in  our 
social  life.  For  instance,  the  whole  daily  life  of  a  family 
changes  when  they  move  from  the  no-servant  class  into 
the  servant-employing  class.  The  wife  then  can  have 
greater  opportunity  to  become  socially  acquainted  with 
her  neighbors,  read  the  daily  papers,  and  so  be  able  to 
discuss  matters  of  common  interest  with  her  husband 
and  even  to  leave  the  baby  at  night  so  that  she  may  go 
out  with  him.  Quite  as  revolutionary  are  the  alterations 
in  habits  of  daily  life  when  a  family  falls  from  the 
servant-employing  class  into  the  no-servant  class.  The 
wife  may  by  that  one  fact  alone  lose  her  whole  grip  on 
her  husband's  interest  by  being  unable  to  go  out  with  him 
or  by  being  too  tired  at  night  to  make  herself  an  agree- 
able companion.  If  she  be  not  gifted  in  cookery  and  can 
no  longer  hire  one  versed  in  that  art,  the  man  may  begin 


8  Oilman,  Charlotte  Perkins,  "What  Diantha  Did";  a  readable 
novel. 

6  Thompson,  Robert  Ellis,  "The  History  of  the  Dwelling 
House." 

117 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

to  find  it  convenient  to  take  his  evening  dinners  down- 
town, and  so  the  family  life  is  threatened. 

If,  as  some  maintain,  the  main  force  holding  the  family 
together  at  the  present  time  is  the  economic  dependence 
of  the  wife  upon  her  husband,  then  the  removal  of  work 
from  the  home  will  break  this  binding  tie.  If  this  were 
true,  one  would  only  have  to  hear  John  Stuart  Mill's 
terrific  arraignment  of  such  a  system  in  his  "Subjection 
of  Women"  to  realize  that  family  life  based  on  such  a 
bond  is  certainly  not  desirable  for  the  woman,  however  it 
may  please  the  fancy  of  the  man. 

Quite  as  interesting  are  the  views  of  Mrs.  Mill,  who, 
in  an  article  in  the  Westminster  Gazette?  discussing  "lay- 
ing open  to  women  the  employments  now  monopolized 
by  men"  and  the  tendency  to  lower  wages,  says:  "The 
worst  ever  asserted,  much  worse  than  is  at  all  likely  to 
be  realized,  is  that  if  women  competed  with  men,  a  man 
and  a  woman  could  not  together  earn  more  than  is  now 
earned  by  the  man  alone.  Let  us  make  this  supposition, 
the  most  unfavorable  supposition  possible:  the  joint 
income  of  the  two  would  be  the  same  as  before,  while 
the  woman  would  be  raised  from  the  position  of  that  of 
a  servant  to  that  of  a  partner.  Even  if  every  woman,  as 
matters  now  stand,  had  a  claim  on  some  man  for  support, 
how  infinitely  preferable  is  it  that  part  of  the  income 
should  be  of  the  woman's  earning,  even  if  the  aggregate 
sum  were  but  little  increased  by  it,  rather  than  that  she 
should  be  compelled  to  stand  aside  in  order  that  men 
may  be  the  sole  earners,  and  the  sole  dispensers  of  what 
is  earned.  Even  under  the  present  laws  respecting  the 
property  of  women,  a  woman  who  contributes  materially 


7 July,  1851.    "Enfranchisement  of  Women";  reprinted  in  J.  S. 
Mill's  "Dissertations  and  Discussions"   (1859-74,  Vol.  II). 

118 


AS  SPECIALIZED  GAINFUL  OCCUPATIONS 

to  the  support  of  the  family,  cannot  be  treated  in  the 
same  contemptuously  tyrannical  manner  as  one  who, 
however  she  may  toil  as  a  domestic  drudge,  is  a  depend- 
ent on  the  man  for  subsistence." 

In  a  footnote,  Mrs.  Mill  continues:  "The  truly  hor- 
rible effects  of  the  present  state  of  the  law  among*  the 
lowest  of  the  working  population,  is  exhibited  in  those 
cases  of  hideous  maltreatment  of  their  wives  by  working- 
men,  with  which  every  newspaper,  every  police  report, 
teems.  Wretches  unfit  to  have  the  smallest  authority 
over  any  living  thing,  have  a  helpless  woman  for  their 
household  slave.  These  excesses  could  not  exist  if  women 
both  earned,  and  had  the  right  to  possess,  a  part  of  the 
income  of  the  family." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  women  who  today  wish  to  be 
independent  may  obtain  their  livelihood  in  some  occupa- 
tion outside  of  the  home,  so  those  who  enter  the  matri- 
monial state  evidently  largely  do  so  because  they  prefer 
that  life  and  are  not  so  often  forced  into  marriage  by 
economic  necessity  as  was  formerly  the  case.  But  we 
will  suppose  that  after  marriage  the  woman  continues 
the  profession  which  she  had  before  marriage.  Then 
those  women  who  on  account  of  their  greater  economic 
freedom  have  control  of  their  own  persons  and  refuse  to 
become  mothers  will  remain  childless  and  that  type  of 
woman  will  die  out.  Those  who  have  strong  desires  for 
motherhood,  in  spite  of  their  economic  freedom,  will 
continue  to  bear  children  and  so  will  reproduce  their 
kind.  If  by  this  means  the  unwelcome  children  born  into 
the  world  decrease,  will  society  be  the  worse  off?  Evi- 
dently, while  there  will  be  a  temporary  decrease  in  the 
birth  rate,  there  will  in  the  end  be  an  increase  in  the 
proportion  of  children  who  inherit  from  their  mothers 

119 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

strong  parental  instincts,  making  them  in  their  turn  good 
fathers  and  mothers. 

Furthermore,  there  are  today  thousands  of  men  and 
women  who  refuse  to  marry  because  they  cannot  live 
decently  on  the  $9  a  week  which  the  man  is  able  to  earn. 
But  if  the  woman  also  has  a  profession,  then  both  can 
live  upon  $18  (even  allowing  for  the  fact  that  they  will 
have  to  pay  someone  to  cook  and  wash  for  them), 
especially  if  cooking  is  done  in  central  kitchens  for  many 
families.  Under  such  circumstances  marriages  would 
possibly  take  place  more  generally,  even  though  the 
woman  would  have  to  lay  aside  other  work  during  the 
years  of  child-bearing.  There  will  probably  be  fewer 
spinsters  and  bachelors  when  the  man  and  the  woman 
discover  that  under  such  a  plan  two  can  live  together 
more  cheaply  than  one ;  add  to  this  the  fact  that  the  man 
will  realize  that  he  will  not  be  dependent  on  the  possi- 
bility of  good  cooking  by  one  woman  all  his  life;  and 
the  realization  by  the  woman  that  marriage  means  not 
a  life  of  drudgery  but  a  continuance  in  her  chosen  pro- 
fession, with  only  the  bond  of  pure  affection  between  her- 
self and  another, — will  this  destroy  family  life  ? 

Our  present  industrial  system,  which  makes  the  wife 
dependent  upon  the  man  as  sole  "breadwinner,"  is  a 
potent  cause  of  low  wages  throughout  the  world.  The 
single  man  can  afford  to  strike,  but  the  married  man  is 
handicapped.  He  is  the  stumbling-block  to  progress,  for 
he  cannot  bear  to  see  his  wife  and  children  starve.  But 
if  the  wife  is  also  earning  a  regular  salary,  then  the  mar- 
ried man  will  be  in  a  stronger  position  than  the  single 
man  is  today,  for  though  the  woman's  wage  alone  may 
not  be  able  to  maintain  the  family  in  comfort,  it  will  at 
least  tide  them  over  a  temporary  strain. 

120 


AS  SPECIALIZED  GAINFUL  OCCUPATIONS 

One  reason  why  women  have  been  underbidding  men 
in  the  labor  market  is  because  the  woman  has  been  will- 
ing both  to  do  a  day's  work  in  an  office  or  shop  and  then 
come  home  to  do  a  half-day's  work  at  housework,  getting 
her  meals,  repairing  and  washing  her  clothing.  The  man 
will  not  piece  out  a  small  wage  in  this  way. 

In  this  discussion  of  housework  the  care  of  the  children 
has  been  continually  kept  in  mind  as  a  part  of  the  house- 
wife's profession.  When  the  mother  becomes  a  special 
worker,  what  effect  will  that  have  upon  the  children? 
Whatever  it  may  be,  it  hardly  could  be  worse  than  the 
condition  now  existing  amongst  the  working  classes  in 
our  large  cities,  for  the  wage  of  a  mill  or  factory  hand 
being  on  the  average  only  one-half  enough  to  pay  for 
proper  food,  clothing  and  shelter  for  a  family  of  five,  no 
matter  how  thoughtful  the  mother  may  be,  in  many  cases 
she  cannot  save  the  babies  from  anaemia  or  tuberculosis. 
What  time  and  inspiration  has  she,  a  poor  overworked 
drudge,  to  study  and  plan  the  best  methods  for  the 
physical  care,  the  intellectual  guidance  and  the  moral 
training  of  her  undesired  progeny?  The  little  toddlers 
are  only  in  the  way  all  day  while  she  is  trying  to  get  her 
work  done;  what  man  would  work  under  such  a  handi- 
cap? But  in  certain  communities,  while  the  woman,  who 
may  be  an  excellent  seamstress,  goes  out  to  work  for  eight 
hours,  her  children  are  at  the  schoolhouse  under  the  care 
of  a  special  expert  in  child  training.8  If  the  woman 
works  eight  hours  a  day  at  her  profession,  she  still  has 
eight  hours  a  day  for  family  life.  She  will  enjoy  her 
children  more  and  give  them  better  care  if  she  has  them 
for  eight  hours  a  day  than  if  they  are  at  her  heels  for 


8  At  Gary,  Indiana,  the  school  assumes  responsibility  for  the 
children  for  eight  hours  daily,  partly  in  school-room  work  and 
partly  in  playing  games. 

121 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

sixteen  hours  out  of  the  twenty-four.  Mothers  of  three 
or  four  lively  youngsters  will  generally  admit  that  they 
dread  Saturdays  and  holidays,  especially  if  they  belong 
to  the  no-servant  class  of  housewives.  The  man  who 
objects  to  such  a  plan  on  the  ground  that  it  will  "destroy 
the  home"  will  do  well  to  prove  his  strong  parental 
affection  by  giving  up  a  half  of  his  much-prized  leisure 
hours  to  the  care  of  his  children.  He  will  then  realize 
that  what  is  a  joy  the  first  hour  becomes  a  duty  the 
second,  and  a  burden  the  third,  hour. 

Furthermore,  at  both  ends  of  the  social  scale  we  will 
find  many  women  giving  little  or  no  time  to  housework. 
The  parasitic  woman9  who  spends  a  considerable  part  of 
her  time  in  dressing  and  adding  to  her  personal  attrac- 
tiveness may,  through  her  beautiful  appearance,  be  creat- 
ing values  for  which  her  husband  gladly  pays  by  main- 
taining her  in  luxury,  but  we  will  hardly  include  her 
amongst  housewives  unless  she  does  directly  manage  her 
household. 

The  woman  who  works  at  sweated  trades,  making  gar- 
ments ten  and  twelve  hours  a  day  in  her  "home,"  is  nine- 
tenths  an  industrial  worker  and  only  one-tenth  a  house- 
worker.  The  wife  who  goes  out  to  work  all  day  in  a 
factory  is  the  same.  Then  there  are  many  members  of 
the  working  class  whose  standard  of  living  is  still  that 
of  their  ancestors,  when  the  woman  gave  most  of  her 
time  to  spinning  and  weaving  or  working  in  the  fields, 
for  the  mud  hovel  required  little,  and  received  less,  care, 
while  the  diet  of  mush  and  stews  was  too  simple  to 
require  a  large  display  of  the  science  of  cookery.  The 
ancient  forms  of  work  are  now  being  taken  away  frQm 
the  woman,  and  the  wife  of  the  day  laborer  has  not 


"Veblen,   T.,   "Theory   of   the   Leisure    Class."     Chapter   IV, 
"Conspicuous  Consumption." 

122 


AS  SPECIALIZED  GAINFUL  OCCUPATIONS 

learned,  or  the  family  income  does  not  permit  her  to 
indulge  in,  those  activities  which  are  required  to  meet 
such  desires  as  clean,  comfortable  homes,  the  careful 
preparation  of  a  varied  menu  and  suitable  attention  to  the 
physical  needs  and  mental  and  moral  guidance  of  the 
children.  She  therefore  spends  few  hours  in  productive 
household  labor.  Even  though  she  dawdles  about  the 
house  all  day,  the  total  output  is  small.  Economists 
emphasize  three  points  as  determining  the  productivity 
of  workers :  First,  the  capacity  of  the  individual  worker ; 
second,  whether  he  produces  directly  or  indirectly  (uses 
capital  in  the  form  of  labor-saving  machinery,  etc.)  ; 
third,  whether  he  works  individually  or  in  co-operation 
with  others.10  Manufacturing  is  today  nearly  all  carried 
on  by  indirect  (capitalistic)  methods,  while  there  is  great 
division  of  labor.  Agriculture  is  gradually  following 
along  the  same  lines.  If  the  division  of  labor  and  the 
use  of  labor-saving  devices  have  so  vastly  increased  the 
productivity  of  our  factories,  what  might  they  accom- 
plish for  household  work? 


19  Seager,  "Principles  of  Economics,"  page  135. 

123 


CHAPTER  V 
STUDENT  SERVICE  AT  COLLEGE  HALL 


STUDENT  SERVICE  AT  COLLEGE  HALL 

EDUCATION  today  increasingly  includes  the  practi- 
cal with  the  theoretical;  we  are  learning  by  doing 
things  as  well  as  by  studying  in  books  how  they  ought 
to  be  done.  Schools  of  Household  Science  are  realizing 
that  in  addition  to  having  students  prepare  samples 
according  to  each  recipe,  a  larger  experience  is  necessary 
for  efficiency  in  preparing  meals  for  an  institution  with 
a  hundred  residents,  or  even  for  a  family  of  five.  For, 
besides  the  ability  to  produce  correctly  cooked  dishes, 
there  are  other  qualities  the  development  of  which  require 
just  as  careful  training.  The  necessity  of  learning  to  see 
what  work  needs  to  be  done,  and  to  put  work  through — 
that  is,  to  get  it  done  in  a  definite  time — is  of  prime 
importance. 

Neither  is  instruction  in  household  science  in  our  col- 
leges limited  to  the  preparation  of  teachers.  There  is  an 
increasing  movement  amongst  various  institutions  to 
reorganize  their  household  management,  replacing 
servants  with  house  workers  having  a  higher  degree  of 
training  and  skill,  in  charge  of  thoroughly  educated  and 
experienced  household  science  graduates.  This  opens  a 
splendid  new  field  of  opportunity  for  the  student  of 
household  science.1 

As  the  view  gains  ground  that  higher  educational  train- 
ing should  be  for  not  only  such  professions  as  those  of 
lawyers  and  doctors,  but  is  beneficial  to  all,  society  begins 


*A    certain    Philadelphia    institution    will    next    year    replace 
domestic  servants  with  trained  workers. 

127 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

to  realize  that  to  adequately  provide  for  this  would  be  a 
heavy  burden  to  place  upon  the  community,  nor  can  most 
parents  afford  to  feed,  clothe  and  house  the  growing 
generation  for  six  to  eight  years  beyond  the  grammar 
school  grades.  Thus  it  becomes  necessary  to  devise 
means  by  which  students  may  work  their  way  through 
college.  Not  only  is  this  desirable  from  a  financial  stand- 
point, but  there  are  many  who  believe  that  the  self- 
reliance  and  added  interest  in,  and  value  placed  upon, 
their  training  thus  gained,  makes  this  method  preferable 
for  all  young  people.  That  work  may  be  as  pleasurable 
as  play,  is  abundantly  evidenced  by  the  artist  who  is 
happiest  when  busy  at  his  chosen  profession.  That  house- 
hold work  may  be  made  enjoyable  through  a  correct 
appreciation  of  its  skillful  handling  is  equally  possible. 

It  hardly  requires  argument  to  prove  that  most  people 
consider  housework  done  for  hire  as  menial.  To  raise 
this  work  to  an  equal  standing  with  that  of  the  trained 
nurse  or  kindergartner  is  highly  desirable. 

With  the  aim  of  attempting  to  attain  the  above  enum- 
erated advantages  for  the  household  science  students  of 
Temple  University,2  the  author  assumed  financial 
responsibility  for  College  Hall  (see  Appendix  C),  a  hotel 
at  Ocean  Grove,  New  Jersey,  accommodating  sixty  guests. 
This  was  run  as  any  other  seashore  hotel,  except  that 
no  servants  were  employed.  All  of  the  work,  from  clean- 
ing the  building  to  cooking,  serving  and  laundry  work, 
was  done  by  Temple  University  students,  except  that  in 
the  rush  of  the  season  extra  assistance  was  given  by 


'Temple  University  was  founded  thirty  years  ago  by  Dr. 
Russell  H.  Conwell,  who  is  still  its  honored  president.  The 
student  body  at  present  exceeds  3,000.  Many  of  the  students  are 
working  part  time  while  seeking  higher  education.  The  main 
buildings  are  located  at  Broad  and  Berks  Streets,  Philadelphia. 

128 


STUDENT  SERVICE  AT  COLLEGE  HALL 

several  young  women  from  other  colleges  and  from  the 
Asbury  Park  summer  home  of  the  Philadelphia  Y.  W. 
C.  A.  Only  one  rule  not  customary  in  most  hotels  was 
enforced, — no  smoking  was  permitted  anywhere  about 
the  premises.  This  cost  a  loss  of  patronage  amounting 
probably  to  several  hundred  dollars,  but  it  is  hoped  that 
in  the  long  run  there  will  be  enough  people  who  appre- 
ciate this  arrangement  to  more  than  compensate  for  the 
initial  loss. 

A  woman  experienced  in  school  lunch  room  work  had 
oversight  of  the  culinary  department  until  the  middle  of 
the  summer,  when,  at  her  own  request,  she  was  released. 
The  management  were  fortunate  in  securing  to  fill  this 
vacancy  the  services  of  a  woman  of  rare  attainments 
who  had  had  years  of  experience  in  hotel  work.  In 
previous  years  the  cooking  in  this  hotel  had  been  mostly 
done  with  a  large  French  range  in  the  basement,  the  food 
sent  upstairs  on  a  dumb-waiter  and  kept  warm  on  a  small 
stove  in  the  pantry.  Food  was  prepared  in  the  base- 
ment. In  place  of  this  arrangement,  a  six-burner  gas 
range  was  installed  on  the  main  floor  and  the  food  pre- 
pared in  an  adjoining  room.  In  the  construction  of  the 
building  a  cupboard  had  been  placed  so  low  over  the  sink 
that  anyone  washing  dishes  must  bend  over  at  an  angle 
of  almost  45  degrees,  yet  none  of  the  previous  proprietors 
had  apparently  cared  enough  about  the  conditions  under 
which  their  servants  were  working  to  end  such  a  hard- 
ship. This  was  easily  remedied  by  cutting  away  the 
lower  section  of  the  cupboard. 

The  heavier  work  about  the  house  and  the  repair  work 
was  done  by  a  capable  young  man  of  the  Temple  Physical 
Education  Department,  who  took  hold  of  the  work  not 
only  conscientiously,  but  with  deep  interest.  While  those 
who  proved  to  be  especially  efficient  in  any  given  line 

129 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

of  work  spent  most  of  their  time  at  those  tasks,  an  effort 
was  made  to  exchange  occupations,  so  that  all  might  have 
some  experience  not  only  in  cooking  and  sewing,  but 
also  in  chamberwork,  laundering  and  cleaning. 

The  ideal  aimed  at  was  to  place  the  work  upon  an 
eight-hour  day  basis,  but  the  first  season  this  could  not 
be  attained,  through  the  lack  of  a  sufficient  working  force. 
Several  students  who  agreed  to  assist  at  College  Hall  in 
August,  changed  their  plans  for  the  summer,  and  there 
was  difficulty  in  filling  their  places  on  short  notice.  The 
hotel  was  open  from  June  15th  to  September  15th.  A 
few  students  assisted  all  summer,  but  many  came  for  a 
term  of  four  or  six  weeks.  No  special  sleeping  quarters 
were  assigned  to  the  students.  In  June,  when  the  house 
was  only  partly  filled,  they  had  at  times  the  best  rooms 
in  the  house.  In  August  it  was  necessary  to  double  up, 
but  at  no  time  were  the  accommodations  of  the  student 
workers  less  attractive  than  those  offered  to  guests. 
Those  assistants  who  were  not  engaged  in  cooking  or 
serving  meals  ate  with  the  guests.  There  was  never  the 
least  friction  or  objection  by  the  guests  to  the  students 
using  the  parlor  as  freely  as  anyone  else.  The  wish  was 
frequently  expressed  that  the  students  join  the  guests  as 
often  as  possible  to  chat  with  them  or  to  make  up  swim- 
ming or  boating  parties. 

When  positions  had  in  previous  years  been  secured  for 
students  in  seashore  hotels,  the  managers  refused  to 
permit  them  to  sit  in  the  parlors  or  on  the  verandas  or 
to  eat  in  the  dining-room,  saying  that  the  guests  objected 
to  having  those  who  served  them  mingle  with  them  as 
their  equals.  Furthermore,  if  the  manager  treated  the 
students  with  more  consideration  than  the  other  house- 
workers,  the  latter  objected  to  the  discrimination,  while 
if  the  students  were  treated  as  "servants,"  they  objected. 

130 


STUDENT  SERVICE  AT  COLLEGE  HALL 

One  of  the  finest  happenings  of  the  season  occurred  when 
a  Temple  graduate  in  household  science,  who  was  stop- 
ping at  one  of  the  most  exclusive  hotels  in  the  resort, 
willingly  came  and  waited  on  the  table  for  three  successive 
days  until  a  delayed  assistant  from  Teachers'  College, 
Columbia,  arrived. 

That  work  can  be  made  joyful  when  done  in  the  spirit 
of  fellowship,  was  experienced  to  a  remarkable  degree. 
Never  did  anyone  have  to  be  ordered  to  do  any  work, 
and  students  frequently  had  to  be  urged  to  stop  in  order 
to  obtain  the  required  rest.  That  this  eagerness  to  be  of 
service  did  not  spring  from  any  mercenary  motives  is 
proven  by  the  fact  that  any  of  these  students  might 
readily  have  obtained  positions  paying  a  higher  salary  in 
hotels  run  on  a  commercial  basis.  A  salary  of  twenty 
cents  an  hour  was  paid,  and  out  of  this  students  paid 
their  board  and  lodging  on  practically  the  same  basis  as 
the  guests. 

When  some  such  plan  as  this  is  worked  out  on  an 
all-the-year-round  basis,  it  will  make  it  possible  for 
students  to  pay  for  board,  lodging  and  tuition  while 
learning  their  profession  in  the  most  practical  and  useful 
way.3 

All  the  workers  kept  time-record  cards  of  the  work 
they  did,  so  that  in  making  out  the  budget  it  is  possible 
to  ascertain  the  cost  of  each  line  of  work. 

Financially,  this  first  year  the  returns  did  not  cover 
the  outlay.  This  was  principally  due  to  the  shark  scare 


3  It  is  hoped  that  someone  interested  in  this  practical  self- 
supporting  educational  method  for  young  women  will  furnish 
an  endowment  by  means  of  which  such  work  can  be  carried  on, 
or,  money  invested  in  such  a  way  could  both  pay  customary 
interest  rates  and  help  many  young  women  to  higher  oppor- 
tunities in  life. 

131 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

(a  man  at  a  nearby  resort  having  been  killed  by  a  shark 
while  swimming  in  the  ocean),  and  the  fear  of  infantile 
paralysis,  both  of  which  causes  kept  many  families  at 
home  or  sent  them  to  the  mountain  resorts. 


132 


CHAPTER  VI 
BUDGETS  AND  BUDGET  MAKING 


SECTION  I 
ANALYSIS  OF  FORTY  BUDGETS 

THE  scientific  analysis  of  the  household  budget  has 
been  a  development  of  the  past  two  decades.  Most 
of  the  studies  made  have  concerned  themselves  with  the 
expenditures  of  families  on  small  incomes.1  Chapin 
found  that  a  family  in  New  York  City  living  on  less  than 
$900  annual  income  would  suffer  from  malnutrition, 
overcrowding,  would  be  underclothed,  or  would  have 
to  exercise  the  closest  economy  and  spend  all  of  the 
family  income  with  above  the  average  care  and  foresight 
in  order  to  avoid  these  conditions.  Mrs.  Bruere2  decides 
that  an  income  of  $1,000  is  required  to  maintain  a  family 
in  "decency"  and  $1,200  for  "efficiency,"  and  these 
incomes  do  not  permit  saving,  except  at  the  expense  of 
decency  or  efficiency.  Prof.  Marshall,  the  English  econo- 
mist, states  that  "The  average  income  per  head  in  the 
United  Kingdom,  which  was  about  £15  in  1820,  is  about 
£37  now;  i.  e.,  it  has  risen  from  about  £75  to  £185  per 
family  of  five ;  and  its  purchasing  power  is  nearly  as 
great  as  that  of  £400  in  1820.  A  few  artisans'  families 
earn  about  £185  [about  $900],  and  would  not  gain  by 
an  equal  distribution  of  wealth ;  but  they  have  only  enough 
for  a  healthy  and  many-sided  life."3 

1  Chapin,  R.  C,  "The  Cost  of  Living  Among  Working  Men's 
Families  in  New  York  City"  (1909).    More,  Mrs.  L.  B.,  "Wage- 
Earners'  Budgets"  (1907).    Streightoff,  F.  H.,  "The  Standard  of 
Living  Among  the  Industrial  People  of  America"  (1911). 

2  Bruere,  Martha  B.  and  R.  W.,  "Increasing  Home  Efficiency" 
(1913). 

3  Marshall,  Alfred,  "Principles  of  Economics"  (1907). 

135 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

Further  information  regarding  the  budgets  of  middle- 
class  families  seemed  desirable,  so  twenty  students  of  the 
Household  Science  Class  of  1914  at  Temple  University, 
Philadelphia,  and  the  same  number  in  1915,  obtained 
detailed  budgets  from  their  own  or  other  families,  accord- 
ing to  a  schedule  prepared  for  them.  Nearly  every  family 
had  children  and  the  average  size  is  nearly  that  of  the 
normal  family  of  man,  wife  and  three  children.  In  addi- 
tion an  intensive  study  was  made  of  a  normal  family 
having  an  income  of  $1,800;  also  of  a  family  expending 
$2,400.  The  first  column  of  figures  in  the  following  table 
gives  the  average  expenditure,  under  each  heading  of  the 
budget,  of  the  families  reported  by  the  Class  of  1915, 
followed  by  the  percentage  expenditure.  In  the  third 
column  the  same  facts  are  given  for  the  Class  of  1914. 
On  comparing  expenditures  by  the  various  families,  it 
was  found  that  under  each  budget  heading  most  of  the 
families  would  have  an  expenditure  approximating  a 
certain  sum  most  generally  expended  (called  the  "mode" 
by  statisticians),  while  others  would  range  far  above  or 
below  these  figures.  The  latter  were  then  discarded  and 
the  "average  of  the  most  frequent"  ascertained,  as  given 
below : 


136 


ANALYSIS  OF  FORTY  BUDGETS 


A  Normal 
Family; 
Income 


8 


Norm 
Family 
Income 


O  CM 


8\O  Tf 
CO    10 


8 


ON  Is*  O  co  co  ON 


a«g 

«    °   9  Tf 

?  s 


III 

CM  8 

2CS" 
«°fi 


CM  co 
CO  *O 
CM  CM 


8 


8 


ON  rj-  TJ-  \o  ^1-  10       Q 


10      »-( 

—i     i— i 
ON     10 


r-4  VO  <o  O 


»  u.  -2  g  S  « 

•s  1 4 1  i  1 .1 

§52^|§  5 

fc  U  C/3  O  <  C^  C/J 


137 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

The  incomes  and  expenditures  of  the  forty  budgets 
average  about  $1,800.  A  careful  study  of  the  tables  fol- 
lowing leads  to  the  conclusion  that  in  the  city  of  Phila- 
delphia, in  the  year  1915,  an  income  of  $1,800  will  secure 
for  a  family  of  five  only  a  moderate  living,  while  $2,400 
is  required  for  "comfortable"  family  life. 

A  study  of  how  the  income  is  divided  under  the  major 
headings  shows  that  Food  claims  nearly  30  per  cent,  on 
the  average.  Mrs.  Richards4  suggested  25  per  cent.,  but 
food  prices  have  risen  since  her  day  more  rapidly  than 
have  the  prices  of  other  necessities  of  life.  In  low-income 
budgets,  Food  runs  up  to  40  per  cent.  Clothing  has 
almost  uniformly  been  placed  at  15  per  cent,  in  budgets 
of  both  high  and  low  incomes,  but  in  these  class  budgets 
it  is  found  to  be  nearer  20  per  cent.  The  old  saying  of 
a  week's  pay  for  a  month's  rent  does  not  hold  good  for 
these  studies,  Shelter  averaging  in  the  class  budgets 
nearer  15  per  cent,  than  25  per  cent,  or  even  20  per  cent. 
Operation  claims  only  10  to  about  15  per  cent,  in  the 
class  budgets,  showing  a  small  outlay  for  wages  and 
leaving,  therefore,  a  larger  amount  for  Advancement  and 
Savings. 

Detailed  tables  under  the  major  headings  give  the 
expenditures  under  each  minor  heading.  In  each  table 
the  columns  headed  "Highest"  and  "Lowest"  represent 
the  sum  expended  by  that  family  in  the  class  budgets 
which  spent  the  most  or  the  least  for  a  given  article,  as 
butter,  milk,  etc. 


*  Richards,  Ellen  H.,  "The  Cost  of  Living." 

138 


ANALYSIS  OF  FORTY  BUDGETS 


g 
O 

2 


'luanb  ^ 

1o     AV      S 


t^ 

O\ 


SI6T    «; 
J    jsoin   jo    -AV 


SI6I 


H6T    ' 
ST6I    ' 

frI6I 

SI  61 


^ 


CM  *—  i  to   O  tx   ^  '•H   T-H  to   ON   O 
VOONt^CMOOtN.POiOCMvOCVJ 


»-i     ^  *" 

ON       t>.u-)Ot^OO 
rocorj-rffO 


SI6T     ' 


o     * 


8 


139 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

MEAT  AND  FISH  :  $104  a  year  allows  $2  weekly ;  $156 
allows  $3  weekly. 

EGGS:  $31  pays  for  two  dozen  eggs  weekly  at  30 
cents;  $55  would  purchase  three  dozen  at  35  cents. 

BUTTER:  $47  pays  for  two  and  one-half  pounds 
weekly  at  35  cents;  $50  will  cover  the  same  amount  at 
40  cents.  If  butterine  or  oleomargarine  is  purchased, 
three  and  one-half  pounds  may  be  obtained  weekly  for 
$50. 

MILK:  $87  buys  three  quarts  of  milk  daily  at  8 
cents;  $102  buys  three  and  one-half  quarts  at  8  cents.5 
Note  that  the  average  spent  for  milk  in  the  class  budgets 
is  hardly  over  one-half  the  sum  allowed  on  an  $1,800 
income.  The  lowest  sums  expended,  $14  and  $16,  would 
purchase  one  pint  of  milk  daily  at  8  cents  a  quart. 

BREAD:  Under  this  heading  are  included  flour,  bis- 
cuits, crackers,  cake,  but  not  pies;  $55  allows  15  cents 
daily ;  $83  allows  20  cents  daily,  plus  20  cents  a  week. 

CEREALS:  $13  allows  25  cents  weekly;  $18  allows  35 
cents  weekly.  The  average  of  the  forty  budgets  is  hardly 
over  one-half  of  the  allowance  in  the  $1,800  budget. 
Dietitians  recommend  a  freer  use  of  cereals,  particularly 
for  families  in  which  careful  economy  is  desirable. 

VEGETABLES  :  $60  allows  $5  a  month ;  $90  allows  $7.50 
monthly.  The  small  allowance  for  vegetables  in  some 
budgets  is  due  to  the  fact  that  such  families  have  gardens 
on  which  to  draw  for  supplies  and  fail  to  include  in  their 
budgets  a  fair  price  for  the  produce  therefrom. 


5  Milk  having  risen  to  nine  cents  a  quart  in  this  vicinity,  only 
about  two  and  one-half  and  three  quarts,  respectively,  may  now 
be  purchased  by  above  expenditures. 

140  *} 


ANALYSIS  OF  FORTY  BUDGETS 

FRUITS  :  $36  is  70  cents  a  week ;  $50  is  a  little  under 
$1  weekly.  Fruits  are  considered  by  some  people  as 
luxuries,  but  the  more  we  learn  of  the  values  of  the 
mineral  salts  (see  p.  87,  footnote),  the  more  the  appro- 
priations are  increased  under  this  heading. 

BEVERAGES  :  $15  and  $18  will  cover  an  expenditure 
of  30  and  35  cents  a  week,  respectively.  This  would 
hardly  cover  the  sums  expended  by  families  using 
spirituous  liquors,6  and  barely  suffices  for  the  devotees 
of  the  less  baneful  drinks,  tea  and  coffee.  It  is  adequate 
to  cover  cereal  drinks,  with  some  cocoa  and  chocolate. 

SWEETS  AND  CONDIMENTS:  This  heading  includes 
sugar,  salt,  spices,  molasses,  jams  and  jellies,  but  not 
candy;  $20  and  $23  will  allow  40  and  45  cents  a  week, 
respectively. 

ICE:  As  only  a  small  portion  of  ice  used  is  taken  as 
a  drink,  but  most  of  it  is  used  for  the  preservation  of 
food,  some  budget-makers  include  this  item  under  Opera- 
tion; $12  allows  40  cents,  and  $15  allows  50  cents,  for 
thirty  weeks. 

SUNDRIES  :  Includes  expenditures  for  nuts,  ice  cream, 
pies  and  other  bought  desserts  and  extras;  $15  will  allow 
30  cents  weekly. 

MEALS  PURCHASED:  $45  is  the  cost  of  a  15-cent  lunch 
daily  for  300  days.  If  more  than  one  member  of  a  family 
is  buying  daily  lunches,  some  other  item  must  be  reduced. 
If  all  the  family  get  all  meals  at  home,  this  $45  can  be 
expended  under  other  headings. 


'When  liquors  are  not  served  on  the  table,  make  entry  under 
'spending  money."     (See  p.  152,  infra.) 


141 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 


araooui   O08'l$ 

fX[llUKJ    '|BUIJOU     V      OO     ^ 


-3.IJ    jsoui    jo    -AY    ^J    I-* 
-3jj    jsoui    jo    -AY    §£   £s£i> 


*-«  O\  i— i  T  »-•  I-H       »-H»-tCMO\ 

t^x  co  ON  ^^       co  to 
CM  O     '  ^  rn  CM  *+ 


P3 
en 

H 

O 

g 

H 

O 

u 


C>»iOTJ-i—  ( 


5161      32ft)U  3135-2222^3 


jsopg; 


o 

rT 


*o          to 

CM  to  to  t^ 


totototo 


COCMCMCO     »-«to     I-HT-I^-I 


SI6I 


SS  ^qtQ22^    r^^^^^^^^^S^ 


'3SBJ3AY     10     VOi-J 


to  to 

locoov      to  co  to  to  to  rx 

CO'I-H     "  to  «-J  CM  i-«  CM  CM  CO  CM 


to      tototototo  to 

CM        CM  CM  CM  CM  CM  to  CO        to  l>x 

S16I    '»)I«>AV   2   Sft""      "Jj-^N^^^N"" 


£ 

42    W 


en 
*- 


^      S  g-S^       J§       ^c«. 

H    ^«g^^.^S^  c«i^: 

<    ^'SlSc-^oS^rtE^rt-owprt 

Oc^co^^ffic^offiPoffiu^coj 


I 


ta 


142 


ANALYSIS  OF  FORTY  BUDGETS 

The  $1,800  and  $2,400  budgets  allow  the  husband  30 
per  cent,  of  the  total  family  expenditure  for  clothing. 

OVERCOATS:  $11  will  allow  $6  for  one-third  of  an  $18 
winter  overcoat  (that  is,  it  must  last  for  three  seasons), 
$3  for  one-fifth  of  a  $15  spring  overcoat  and  $2  for  one- 
sixth  of  a  $12  raincoat;  $17  will  pay  for  one-third  of  a 
$24  winter  coat,  one- fourth  of  a  $20  spring  coat  and 
one-fifth  of  a  $20  raincoat. 

SUITS  :  $25.50  will  pay  for  three-quarters  (three  suits 
in  four  years)  of  a  $16  summer  suit  and  three-quarters 
of  an  $18  winter  suit;  $38  will  pay  for  an  $18  summer 
suit  and  a  $20  winter  suit.  (Or,  two  $18  suits  and  set 
aside  $2  toward  a  $40  dress  suit  to  last  20  years.) 

SHIRTS:  $4.50  for  one  $1.50  shirt  and  three  at  $1 ; 
$6  for  two  $1.50  shirts  and  three  at  $1. 

UNDERWEAR:    $4  for  four  $1  union  suits. 

NIGHTSHIRTS:  Included  in  sundries  in  class  budgets; 
$2  for  two  at  $1 ;  $3  for  two  at  $1.50. 

HOSIERY:  $1.50  for  one  dozen  at  12^  cents;  $2  for 
the  same,  plus  two  pairs  at  25  cents. 

SHOES:  $9.50  for  two  pairs  at  $3.50,  repaired  twice 
at  $1.25;  $10.50  for  two  pairs  at  $4,  repaired  twice  at 
$1.25. 

OVERSHOES  :  $1  for  one  pair ;  $2  for  two  pairs.  Some 
men  do  not  wear  overshoes.  (Add  sum  saved  by  so 
doing  to  allowance  for  doctor's  bills!) 

HATS  :  $4.50  for  one  $2  straw  hat  and  one  $2.50  felt 
hat.  If  purchased  at  end  of  season,  this  expenditure  will 
procure  $3  and  $4  hats  at  above  prices. 

143 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

UMBRELLAS:  The  appropriation  of  $1  or  $1.50  will 
suffice,  if  the  umbrella  is  neither  loaned,  lost  nor  stolen ! 
Otherwise,  draw  on  sundries  allowance. 

GLOVES:  $1  and  $1.50  will  secure  a  pair  of  gloves 
annually;  some  prefer  to  pay  $2,  even  though  this  may 
mean  a  biennial  purchase. 

HANDKERCHIEFS  :  75  cents  for  half  a  dozen ;  $1  buys 
the  same,  plus  one  25-cent  handkerchief. 

COLLARS  AND  CUFFS:  $1.75  for  eight  collars  at  \2l/2 
cents  and  three  pairs  of  cuffs  at  25  cents. 

NECKTIES:  $1.50  for  four  ties  at  25  cents  and  one  at 
50  cents ;  $2  allows  an  additional  50-cent  tie  to  above. 

SUNDRIES:  Includes  bath-robes,  suspenders,  garters, 
belts,  collar,  cuff  and  stud  buttons,  suits  cleaned,  pressed 
and  repaired.  Also  nightshirts,  in  class  budgets. 

LAUNDRY:  $9.50  pays  for  one  shirt  at  10  cents,  two 
collars  at  2  cents  each,  one  pair  of  cuffs  at  4  cents,  weekly, 
plus  14  cents  a  year  for  extras. 


144 


ANALYSIS  OF  FORTY  BUDGETS 


* 


ass 


auioom   008'!$     to  otootx 
!  A^IUIBJ  'JBUUOU  y  ON  »— ' »— < »— ' 


lO  to 

tqtx       to       CM 

lOOSTfCOod       '  »-H  r-i  CM  r-i  tX  O 

to      to 

tOiO       CMtqtx  vqioiO 


nei 

j    )soui    jo    'Ay  ,-i 


SI6I    ';ugnb        o  -^t-      -^MO 
j    isovu   jo    -Ay  ^  ™ 


jsoj^oooo 


OOOO 

2227 

oooo 


vo»o      ^-" 


£161 


iOO 

T—  1  1—  i 

^o^o 


C^l       10  O 

\o  I-H  »-H  T—  i  LO  co  10  T—  i 

to  ot  10  10  T-H  <\i  JH  cvi 


10      to      >o 


W6I    '1 

SI6I    'JsaMoq  oo  tx      OOCM 
*I6I    '1 
SI61    '1 

*T6T    ' 
SI6I    ' 


^S 


vo       O       OOO 
l>.        LO        lOVOlOl 


,00 


to 

itx 

Kod 


tx 

oo 


lO        tq 

OO^J-Ototo'toO  to 

»=<CO         Tl-         r-H          TT  to 


vo     vo      to 

3 


to  to 

•  T-H  ^-t  CM'  CM  TT  CM'  CM 


ON       CO 

vo       to 

i       CO 

«+«   £ 


s? 


^.3        OJ  flJ  t-i  e 

a  j    ,,-,    k>  •  »-*    C        *"^ 

^D 

ffi 


145 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

The  $1,800  and  $2,400  budgets  allow  the  wife  35  per 
cent,  of  the  total  family  expenditure  for  clothing.  The 
average  for  the  class  budgets  is  about  50  per  cent,  higher 
than  the  $1,800  allowance  under  this  head. 

COATS  AND  FURS  :  $10  and  $12  seem  to  be  small  allow- 
ances under  this  heading,  but  unless  the  mother  has 
secured  furs  before  the  children  are  added  to  the  family, 
she  is  unlikely  to  secure  them  on  an  $1,800  or  even  a 
$2,400  income. 

SUITS:  $15  and  $20  allow  one  tailor-made  suit 
annually  (summer  and  winter  suits  must  be  worn  two 
years  if  both  are  purchased),  or  a  $30  and  $40  suit  bien- 
nially, or  a  $22.50  and  $30  summer  and  winter  suit  every 
third  year.  (The  budgets  of  the  Class  of  1915  gave 
expenditures  for  suits  under  "Coats  and  Furs.") 

DRESSES:  $10  for  two  house  dresses  at  $1,  one  dress 
at  $3,  and  one-third  of  an  $18  dress ;  $14  for  same,  except 
one-half  of  $18  dress. 

WAISTS:  $7  for  two  waists  at  $1,  one  at  $2  and  one 
at  $3 ;  $9  for  two  waists  at  $1,  one  at  $3  and  one  at  $4.' 

SKIRTS  AND  PETTICOATS:  Expenditures  under  this 
heading  will  vary  with  individual  tastes,  some  preferring 
skirts  and  waists  and  others  preferring  dresses. 

UNDERWEAR  :    Includes  lingerie,  corsets,  etc. 

NIGHTGOWNS:  $4  for  four  at  $1.  (Included  with 
underwear  in  class  budgets.) 


9  If  amounts  allowed  for  dresses,  waists  and  skirts  are  used 
to  purchase  material,  and  these  garments  are  made  at  home, 
the  housewife  will  be  better  dressed  than  if  ready-made  goods 
are  purchased. 

146 


ANALYSIS  OF  FORTY  BUDGETS 

HOSIERY  :  $3  for  six  pairs  at  33  1-3  cents,  two  pairs 
at  50  cents;  $4  for  same,  plus  one  pair  of  silk  stockings 
at  $1. 

SHOES:  $8.50  for  two  pairs  at  $3.50,  repaired  twice 
at  75  cents ;  $10.50  for  one  pair  at  $4,  one  pair  at  $4.50, 
repaired  twice  at  $1. 

OVERSHOES  :  75  cents  for  one  pair.  Some  persons  buy 
a  pair  of  overshoes  with  each  pair  of  shoes.  Some 
budgets  had  no  expenditures  under  this  heading, — a 
doubtful  economy. 

HATS  :  $11  for  one  at  $4,  one  at  $5  and  one  made  over 
for  $2;  $14  for  one  at  $5,  one  at  $6  and  one  made 
over  fdr  $3. 

UMBRELLAS:     See  note  under  umbrellas  for  husband. 

GLOVES  :  The  only  item  for  which  the  lowest  expendi- 
ture in  the  1914  class  budgets  is  the  same  as  in  the  $1,800 
budget ;  $2  for  one  pair  at  $1  and  two  pairs  at  50  cents ; 
$3  for  one  pair  at  $1.50,  one  pair  at  $1  and  one  pair  at 
50  cents. 

HANDKERCHIEFS:  $1.25  for  six  for  a  dollar  and  one 
at  25  cents;  $2.25  for  six  for  a  dollar  and  five  at  25 
cents.10 

SUNDRIES  :  Ties,  collars,  belts,  garters,  jewelry,  repairs, 
cleaning,  laundry  and  materials  for  clothing  made  in 
home. 


"Handkerchiefs,  gloves  and  umbrellas  are  so  frequently 
received  as  gifts  that  some  men  and  women  (especially  the 
latter)  might  be  able  to  transfer  all  of  the  allowances  under 
these  headings  to  "Gifts  to  friends"  (see  p.  153,  infra),  to  cover 
the  expense  of  gifts  made  in  exchange  for  gifts  received. 

147 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

Expenditures  for  children's  clothing  were  not  requested 
in  detail  in  the  class  budgets.  In  the  $1,800  and  $2,400 
budgets,  35  per  cent,  of  the  total  family  expenditure  for 
clothing  is  allotted  to  the  children. 


148 


y^Jv' 


tf\F> 


> 


ANALYSIS  OF  FORTY  BUDGETS 


30IOOUT    O08't$ 

[BUJJOU    V 


S2SSS    8S 


O 

o 


lO  00  CM  00  »—  i 


-3JJ     JSOIU     JO     ' 


SI6I    ': 

•3JJ     1SOUI     JO     'Ay 


in     *^o 

^H^-O~H  oo  t^ 

sa™*s 
5 

OCOOO'*  VOVO 
OMO  I-H  rj-  o\  VO 
CM  CM 


m 


09- 


$%% 


CM        i-"     |  K 
W- 

COlO  00 
CM^t^ 


«^ 


rf        O        O 
rl-O'-<t>.iO         O' 
COlOrHlOt— I  t^  i 


SI6t 


^* 

VO  O^O  O 

CO  CO  IO  CV1 


isoK^r^^^^1^^ 

in 

VO  •*  co  CM  CM  CM  CO 


frt6I      'JS3AY01  r-t  t>x  CO  t-l         rH 

IOIO 
SX6I     '*S3M(XIot>xinCM»-H'oOCM 


SI6t    ' 


C^3 

'3SB J3AV  VO  t>x  00  CM  O  t>.  OO 

V  O  Tt  v£5  CO  CM  ^  co 

co  CM  I-H 


SI6T    'aSBJaAVco^, 
c^c^ 


00»-i  i— t        >— i 


CM          t^^H 


^^ 

r— I  i—l 

IO  CM 

^C^ 

in 


vo  CM  o  o  r^      O1 

co  O  ^O  O  OO         vO  i 
O\  i— i  iO  CM  CO         i-H  i 


l^^r^^S 

I  CO          *-4 


t-H  "O  tx  O  Tt1 

r^  ox  CM  t~>.  *— " 


a 


.2 
-3 

I 


•2        »       c  -  u 

D.2  -3  «    .2  S  R  -a 


KO 


< 


§-^«     ll    I 

c^c^     f2 


149 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

SHELTER 

The  $1,800  and  $2,400  budgets  allow  20  per  cent,  for 
shelter.  Under  this  heading  should  be  included  carfare 
to  work,  about  $30  a  year  for  a  person  paying  daily  a 
single  fare  each  way  on  the  trolley.  Thus  a  person  living 
on  $2,400  could  expend  $480,  or  $40  monthly,  for  a  house 
near>his  place  of  employment,  but  only  $37.50  if  using 
the  trolley,  or  only  $35  if  spending  20  cents  daily  for 
transportation  by  train  or  trolley.  Usually  the  properties 
distant  from  the  center  of  the  city  are  enough  lower  in 
rental  price  so  that  $35  a  month  will  secure  a  home  quite 
as  desirable  as  a  central  property  at  $40. 

* 

OPERATION 

As  the  principal  item  under  this  heading  is  wages,  the 
percentage  of  income  expended  will  vary*  widely  accord- 
ing to  whether  a  houseworker  is  regularly  employed.  In 
those  cases  in  which  this  arrangement  is  made,  20  per 
cent,  of  the  income  will  be  necessary  for  operation ;  other- 
wise, 10  to  12  per  cent,  will  suffice. 

HEAT:  The  expenditure  under  this  head  will  vary 
widely  with  different  parts  of  the  country,  but  as  our 
studies  are  made  in  the  latitude  of  Philadelphia,  $62  for 
ten  tons  at  $6.20,  or  $75  for  twelve  tons  at  $6.25,  will 
be  almost  the  minimum  possible  for  comfort,  where  cook- 
ing is  by  coal  range  in  winter.  Note  the  bills  for  double 
that  amount  in 'some  budgets. 

LIGHT:  A  very  variable  item,  according  to  whether 
the  house  is  closely  surrounded  by  other  buildings  and 
will,  therefore,  require  the  use  of  artificial  light  on  cloudy 
days ;  whether  oil,  gas  or  electricity  is  used ;  whether 

150 


ANALYSIS  OF  FORTY  BUDGETS 

lights  are  kept  burning  in  halls ;  the  local  price  per  thou- 
sand feet  or  kilowatts;  whether  gas  is  used  for  cooking 
and  not  differentiated  from  gas  used  for  lighting. 
Thirty-six  dollars  allows  $2  for  light  per  month  and  $2 
for  gas  for  cooking  for  six  months.  If  no  gas  is  used 
for  cooking,  add  $12  to  coal  bill. 

TELEPHONE  :  $26  allows  $2  a  month,  the  contract  rate 
for  party  residence  lines  in  Philadelphia,  and  $2  a  year 
for  extras. 

REFURNISHING:  It  is  difficult  to  get  accurate  budget 
figures  under  this  head,  since  a  small  amount  of  refurn- 
ishing may  be  done  one  year  and  a  considerable  amount 
another  year.  A  reliable  estimate,  therefore,  should  con- 
sider expenses  over  at  least  ten  years,  or,  better,  over 
twenty,  divided  by  ten  (or  twenty)  for  the  annual 
average.  Under  this  heading  include  purchase  of  new 
furniture  and  carpets  to  replace  old,  repairs  to  furniture, 
replacement  of  worn-out  kitchen  and  dinihg^room  equip- 
ment, and  bed  and  table  linen. 


WAGES  :  $194  allows  wages  of  $3.5fTja  week  for  a 
houseworker,  or  two  days'  assistance  weekly  of  a  laun- 
dress at  $1.75  per  day,  plus  $12  for  a  week's  extra  help 
at  spring  or  fall  housecleaning  time;  $286  allows  $5.50 
Weekly  for  the  entire  year. 

CLEANING  MATERIALS  :  Includes  equipment  for  clean- 
ing and  materials  used. 

• 

ADVANCEMENT 

The  term  "Higher  Life"  is  used  by  some  writers  to 
include  these  expenditures  for  mental  and  physical  edu- 
cation and  recreation,  social  life  and  philanthropy.  Ten 
per  cent,  of  income  is  allowed  under  this  heading  in  the 

151 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

$1,800  and  $2,400  budgets,  and  5  per  cent,  for  Sundries 
and  Savings,  a  total  of  15  per  cent.  But  in  the  class 
budgets  there  is  a  remarkable  uniformity  of  25  to  26 
per  cent,  for  the  expenditures  under  these  three  headings, 
since  most  of  the  budgets  are  of  families  who  do  not 
employ  a  houseworker. 

HEALTH:  The  $1,800  and  $2,400  budgets  allow 
respectively  for  doctor  $6  and  $10;  druggist,  $2  and  $3; 
dentist,  $5  and  $5;  oculist,  $1  and  $2;  toilet,  $4  and  $4; 
total,  $18  and  $24,  or  1  per  cent,  of  income. 

RECREATION  :  Includes  correspondence,  summer  vaca- 
tion, travel,  theatre,  dances,  dues  of  social  clubs,  play- 
things, and  "spending  money"  used  for  candy,  sodas, 
liquors,  tobacco  and  other  "personal  indulgences"  made 
in  the  search  for  pleasure,  whether  these  are  generally 
rated  to  be  desirable  or  undesirable,  a  total  of  $36  and 
$48,  or  2  per  cent,  of  income. 

EDUCATION:  The  allowances  under  the  $1,800  and 
$2,400  budgets  were  respectively, — tuition  and  school 
supplies,  $30  and  $32;  carfare' to  school,  $10  and  $20; 
dues  of  educational  associations,  $3  and  $4;  lectures, 
$1  and  $3 ;  daily  paper,  $6  and  $6;  magazines,  $2  and  $3 ; 
books,  $2  and  $4;  total,  $54  and  $72,  which  is  3  per 
cent,  of  the  income.  If  more  money  is  required  for 
tuition,  $50  can  be  taken  out  of  "Beneficence,"  for 
"Charity  begins  at  home!" 

BENEFICENCE:12  $72  and  $96  is  4  per  cent,  of  the 
$1,800  and  $2,400  budgets.  For  a  family  of  five  to  expend 
10  per  cent,  under  this  heading  would  require  skimping 

12  A  better  word  than  "Benevolence,"  which  is  from  Latin, 
bene,  "well,"  and  volens,  "wishing,"  while  Beneficence  is  from 
facere,  "to  do,"  and  bene,  "well."  Many  writers  use  heading 
"Charity." 

152 


ANALYSIS  OF  FORTY  BUDGETS 

all  through  the  budget,  unless  the  mother  attempts  to  do 
practically  all  the  housework.  The  expenditures  are 
divided  thus:  \y2  per  cent,  of  income,  $27  and  $36,  for 
contributions  to  Church;  2  per  cent.,  $36  and  $48,  to 
philanthropy,  either  as  contributions  or  dues  to  various 
organizations  for  social  welfare;  l/2  per  cent.,  $9  and 
$12,  for  gifts  to  friends. 

SUNDRIES  AND  SAVINGS:  5  per  cent,  of  income  is 
allowed  for  savings  and  sundries.  The  $54  and  $72 
savings  will  cover  payments  for  life  insurance,  but  not 
much  at  that.  The  Sundries  heading  includes  the  extras 
which  are  either  unavoidable,  or  are  luxuries  occasionally 
indulged  in  over  and  above  the  usual  allowance. 

On  an  income  of  $1,800  to  $2,400,  therefore,  a  family 
of  five,  living  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  in  the  year  1915, 
would  have  found  it  difficult  to  save  (beyond  the  small 
amounts  required  for  life  insurance  payments  or  their 
equivalent  put  in  the  saving  fund),  unless  they  econo- 
mized on  some  such  desirable  "comfort"  as: 

Reducing  food  expenditures  by  using  meat  substitutes 
or  only  the  cheap  cuts  of  meat,  replacing  butter  with 
butterine,  going  without  milk  or  an  egg  with  the  break- 
fast, or  some  other  such  economy. 

Reducing  clothing  expenses  by  spending  much  time 
looking  for  and  attending  "special  sales,"  or  wearing 
clothing  to  a  point  requiring  extra  time  for  repairing,  or 
dressing  exceedingly  "simply." 

Reducing  expense  of  shelter  by  living  in  a  house  less 
pretentious,  or  in  a  neighborhood  less  desirable,  than 
one's  friends  in  the  same  economic  class. 

Reducing  the  expense  of  operation,  principally  by  run- 
ning the  household  without  the  aid  of  a  houseworker  or 
having  help  only  for  a  day  or  two  weekly. 

153 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

Reducing  or  practically  eliminating  "advancement"  by 
minimizing  the  expenditures  for  recreation,  education  or 
beneficence. 

It  will  be  a  study  of  great  interest  for  anyone,  by 
referring  to  the  tables  given  above,  to  ascertain  amongst 
a  group  of  normal  families  enjoying  an  income  of  $1,800 
or  $2,400,  just  which  items  each  family  chooses  to  omit 
or  minimize.  But,  unfortunately,  some  persons  prefer 
to  have  a  deficit,  rather  than  "skimp,"  trusting  to  an 
expected,  or  hoped-for,  increase  in  future  income  to  cover 
the  overdraft. 


154 


SECTION  II 
THE  REVISED  HOUSEHOLD  BUDGET 

WE  are  now  ready  to  take  up  the  making  of  a  budget 
based  upon  the  total  income.  For  this  purpose 
we  will  take  the  $1,800  and  $2,400  families  and  readjust 
their  budgets  so  as  to  include  the -house  wife's  and  house- 
worker's  contribution.  The  total  number  of  hours  of 
household  work  given  on  p.  67  include  the  work  of  all 
members  of  the  household  group.  Reference  to  the  indi- 
vidual schedules  shows  that  the  most  frequent  time  given 
for  housewives  alone  (Query  3)  for  household  work  is 
about  sixty-four  hours  per  week,  a  nine-hour  day,  includ- 
ing Sunday.  Multiplied  by  fifty  weeks,  the  result  is  3,150 
hours  in  a  year.  Multiplying  this  by  30  cents  per  hour 
we  get  $945,  agreeing  approximately  with  the  estimate 
of  the  housewife's  income  on  page  112. 

The  houseworker's  hours  are  found  to  average  about 
seventy  per  week,  or  3,500  a  year.  The  most  frequent 
wage  mentioned  in  the  household  schedules  in  reply  to 
Query  18  ("What  wages  do  you  pay  cook,  general  house- 
worker,  etc.?")  is  $5  per  week.  If  we  allow  as  much 
more  for  board,  lodging  and  laundry,  this  gives  $500  as 
the  annual  income  for  fifty  weeks,  agreeing  with  the 
total  arrived  at  on  p.  107  (supra).  Divided  by  3,500 
hours,  the  rate  per  hour  is  about  15  cents,  which  is  the 
sum  paid  by  half  the  families  in  the  Maine  inquiry  (p. 
106,  supra). 

Taking  now  the  divisions  of  cash  income  of  the  $1,800 
family  (p.  137,  supra),  since  this  income  is  not  far  from 

155 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

the  average  of  the  forty  budgets  studied,  and  using  three- 
fourths  of  the  time  given  in  the  table  on  p.  67  (as  sixty- 
four  hours  is  about  three-fourths  of  eighty-two),  we 
get  the  following: 

BUDGET  OF  FAMILY  WITH  $1,800  INCOME 

Cash     %     Housewife's  Services  Total       % 

35 
17 
17 
14 

1 

16 

Too 

Next  we  will  take  the  family  having  an  income  of 
$2,400  and  employing  a  house  worker.  Reference  to  the 
household  schedules  shows  that  the  divisions  of  time  by 
housewife  and  houseworker  in  this  family  were  as 
follows : 


Food           $540 

30 

27 

hrs. 

at30cx50=$405 

$945 

Clothing 

270 

15 

13.5 

hrs.  at  30c  x  50= 

202.50 

472.50 

Shelter 

360 

20 

6.75 

hrs. 

at  30c  x  50— 

101.25 

461.25 

Operation 

360 

20 

2.25 

hrs. 

at  30c  x  50= 

33.75" 

393.75 

Overtime 

1.5 

hrs. 

at  30c  x  50= 

22.50 

22.50 

Adv'cement 

&  Sav'gs 

270 

15 

12 

hrs. 

at  30c  x  50= 

180" 

450 

$1800 

100 

63 

$945 

$2745 

15  Management. 
"Care  of  children. 


156 


THE  REVISED  HOUSEHOLD  BUDGET 


» 


s 


» 


CJ  "£* 

CU 

*°     3 

CO 

g  .  § 

•  j  u.    o 

*§.s 


rt    rt    rt 


rt    rt 
to     to 


to 

8     JU 


§   2 


O" 


s 


8 


T3    !_,      «U 

rt  a  5 

iM 

-M   <U     «T 


^  ^^^    8    « 

?r     -4->  *j  4->        -t->        -t-> 


(O       CO       CO 


R     J5  I  8 


332 


be       J3   8  g  £ 
ulltJS4 

g^4^     a^^«« 

fe  U  c^O       < 


HI  t 

§a|    I 

.«2  «    0       ««• 

S    £ 

o 

sjU 

If  II  •- 

*-S  |S| 


CO 


157 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  changes  in  the  percentages 
of  expense  that  take  place  when  the  cost  of  the  productive 
activities  in  the  home  are  included  in  the  budget.  The 
total  includes  the  husband's  salary,  the  wife's  income, 
and  $250  received  from  the  houseworker  for  her  board, 
lodging  and  laundry. 

Comparing  the  percentages  of  expenditure  in  the  final 
columns  of  these  two  tables,  we  find  that  although  the 
amount  spent  for  food  by  the  family  having  a  $2,400 
income  is  much  greater  than  that  of  the  family  having 
only  an  $1,800  income,  yet  the  percentage  is  smaller.  The 
greatest  increase  in  percentage  of  outlay  in  the  $2,400 
budget  is  under  "Advancement,"  which  includes  the  care 
of  children.  Next  to  this  is  the  increase  in  the  compara- 
tive outlay  for  "Shelter,"  which  includes  house-cleaning. 

In  order  to  show  the  relation  between  the  household 
budget  and  those  of  other  business  concerns,  we  will  next 
re-arrange  our  $3,595  budget  under  the  headings  of  the 
"Expenses  of  Production."18 


18  Seager,  "Principles  of  Economics,"  p.  173. 

158 


THE  REVISED  HOUSEHOLD  BUDGET 


HOUSEHOLD   EXPENSES          HOUSEHOLD  INCOME 


$2145 


$1200 
250 


60 


Raw  materials  : 
Food 
Clothing 

Replacement  fund: 
Clothing 
Repairs  M 
Furniture 
Utensils 
Linen 
Insurance  M 

$720 

$725 

$355 
10 
15 
10 
8 
2 
400 

Husband 
Salary 
Loss 

Wife 
Salary 
Profits 

$2400 

255 

$945 
255 

From      houseworker's 
board  and  lodging 
From    rent    of    furni- 
ture  and   equipment 
to  family 

Rent 
Taxes  " 
Interest  " 
(4%   on  $1200) 
Operation  : 
Heat,   light   and 
'phone 
Materials 
Gas,  cooking 
Sundries 
Advancement 

480 
12 
48 

$125 
12 
12 
48 
240 

Wages: 
Housewife 
Houseworker 
Cash 
In  "kind" 
Extra  help 

$500 

250 
250 

36 
mi/; 

Wages  of  management: 
Housewife 

Profits : 

Housewife       +$255 
Husband          —  255 


445 


Savings 


$3583 
,72 

$3655 


$3655 : 


19  On  furniture  only.  If  house  is  owned,  the  expenditures  for 
taxes,  interest  and  repairs .  thereon  would  be  made  under  rent 
heading. 

30  This  total  exceeds  that  in  the  preceding  table  by  $60,  due  to 
the  inclusion  of  the  income  from  rent  of  furniture  and  equipment. 

159 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

In  treating  of  the  expenses  of  production  it  is  desir- 
able to  determine  first  what  is  being  produced.  The 
product  aimed  at  by  the  expenditure  of  the  family  income 
is  a  healthy,  educated,  well-fed,  clothed,  housed  and 
happy  family,  living  in  a  manner  to  continue  these  condi- 
tions not  only  for  a  lifetime,  but  also  from  generation  to 
generation. 

First,  we  must  consider  the  CAPITAL  invested  in  the 
business.  The  establishment  of  the  business  occurs  when 
the  firm  is  formed  at  the  end  of  the  wedding  trip,  that  is, 
when  the  housewife  begins  work.  The  capital  will  be  all 
the  financial  resources  which  are  being  drawn  upon  to 
obtain  the  product  mentioned  in  the  preceding  paragraph. 
A  statement  of  the  capital  goods21  invested  would  include 
the  house  and  land,  if  owned,  and  all  the  furniture  and 
furnishings  of  the  house. 

RAW  MATERIALS  include  all  food,  whether  requiring 
cooking  or  not,  as  practically  all  food  must  be  properly 
served  before  it  is  ready  for  consumption.  Materials 
purchased  to  make  into  clothing  at  home  are  included 
here. 

REPLACEMENT  FUND  includes  clothing,  repairs  to  furni- 
ture, furniture  and  equipment  to  replace  that  broken, 
etc.  If  more  valuable  furniture  is  procured  to  replace 
that  worn  out,  the  difference  should  be  credited  to  capital 
invested ;  the  same  rule  would  apply  to  linen  and  utensils. 
If  the  house  is  owned,  a  sinking  fund  of,  say,  2  per 
cent,  should  be  charged  under  rent.  Fire  insurance  is 
also  a  form  of  replacement. 


21  Economists  distinguish  between  capital,  the  money  which  is 
set  aside  to  be  used  for  producing  more  wealth,  and  capital 
goods,  which  are  the  instruments  of  production  purchased  with 
such  capital. 

160 


THE  REVISED  HOUSEHOLD  BUDGET 

RENT  is  a  term  generally  applied  to  money  paid  for 
use  of  a  house  and  land.  In  economics  the  two  are  sepa- 
rated; the  money  paid  for  the  use  of  land  is  rent,  that 
paid  for  the  use  of  the  house  is  interest  on  capital  invested 
in  its  construction. 

TAXES  are  said  to  be  paid  by  the  owner  of  the  house. 
They  are,  but  if  the  house  is  rented,  the  owner  passes  on 
the  tax  by  including  it  in  the  rental  of  the  property,  so 
the  final  taxpayer  is  the  occupier  of  the  residence,  whether 
owner  or  not.  The  taxes  and  interest  charged  here  are 
for  the  rental  of  the  furniture  to  the  family. 

OPERATION  includes  sundries,  because  in  any  business 
its  successful  operation  requires  a  reserve  fund  for  emer- 
gencies. It  also  includes  Advancement. 

WAGES  include  not  only  cash  paid  to  the  houseworker, 
but  wages  paid  "in  kind."  The  income  of  the  housewife 
is  that  ascertained  to  be  her  income  when  her  work  is 
valued  at  30  cents  an  hour. 

WAGES  OF  MANAGEMENT  is  the  term  applied  to  the 
salary  of  the  manager  of  a  business.  As  it  is  difficult 
to  value  this  factor  accurately  without  intimate  knowledge 
of  each  housewife's  capabilities,  the  estimate  of  $445  is 
the  difference  between  the  income  of  the  average  house- 
worker  and  the  average  housewife  of  this  group  (p.  155, 
supra) . 

PROFITS  may  be  charged  against  the  housewife  or 
against  the  husband,  according  to  the  respective  ability 
of  each.  In  very  few  cases  would  they  be  so  evenly 
matched  as  to  yield  no  profits  on  one  side  or  the  other. 
The  housewife  receives  the  same  income  as  the  husband 
if  they  share  evenly.  But  that  does  not  necessarily  mean 
that  she  earns  the  same  sum  as  does  her  husband.  As 

161 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

we  have  rated  the  value  of  her  services  at  $945  (p.  155) 
and  she  gets  one-half  of  her  husband's  salary,  or  $1,200, 
her  "profits"  will  be  $255.  As  his  "loss"  will  be  just 
$255,  the  "profit  and  loss"  account  of  this  co-operative 
partnership  will  be  0!  What  is  entered  in  the  income 
account  of  the  household  as  $255  profit  to  the  housewife 
might  be  entered  in  the  family  budget  as  an  equivalent 
exchange  for  charm.  (See  p.  100,  supra.) 

In  industry,  profits  are  not  considered  an  expense  of 
production  from  the  standpoint  of  the  entrepreneur  (the 
enterpriser,  or  man  who  runs  the  business),  but  profits 
are  rather  considered  what  is  left  over  after  all  the 
expenses  have  been  paid;  they  may  be  considered  as  a 
fair  return  for  risk  assumed,  or  as  arising  from  changes 
in  business  conditions.22  From  the  standpoint  of  society, 
however,  profits  should  be  considered  an  expense  of  pro- 
duction, since  they  enter  in  as  a  part  of  the  expense 
because  few  men  will  undertake  production  except  with 
the  expectation  of  making  profits,  and  if  they  do  not 
make  them,  will  retire  from  business  if  possible. 

In  the  household,  also,  profit  is  a  part  of  the  expense 
of  production.  For  the  husband  gives  to  his  wife  what 
he  considers  she  is  worth,23  and  this  includes  wages  for 
her  work  and  profits.  If,  then,  we  say  that  the  value  of 
the  wife  is  to  be  reckoned  by  what  her  husband  gives 
her  for  a  living, — the  view  of  Prof.  S.  N.  Patten  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania, — we  have  the  argument 
given  on  p.  98.  But  on  p.  100  it  was  pointed  out  that 


22  Seager,  "Principles  of  Economics,"  page  198. 

23  In  the  above  calculations  assumed  to  be  one-half  husband's 
income  but  in  actual  practice  more  or  less  than  this  equal  divid- 
ing up  is  likely  to  occur. 

162 


THE  REVISED  HOUSEHOLD  BUDGET 

what  the  husband  gives  his  wife  covers  not  only  her 
services  as  housewife,  but  her  personal  qualities  as  wife.24 

Not  only  does  the  budget  need  to  be  revised  to  include 
the  time  spent  in  housework  and  the  skill  of  that  work, 
but  the  entries  under  Operation  and  Sundries  should  be 
re-arranged.  What  we  desire  to  know  through  the  study 
of  the  budget,  is  the  total  expense  of  feeding  the  family, 
not' of  food  as  a  raw  material ;  the  expense  of  shelter,  not 
merely  the  rental  price  of  an  empty  house. 

The  budget  of  a  family  in  which  the  husband  has  an 
income  of  $2,400,  thus  revised,  will  be  as  follows : 

A  SCIENTIFIC  HOUSEHOLD  BUDGET 

FOOD 

Meat  and  fish,  eggs,  butter,  milk,  bread, 

cereals,   vegetables,    fruits,   beverages, 

sweets  and  condiments,  ice,  sundries, 

meals    purchased    $720.00 

Meals  purchased   12.00 

$732.00 

Rent,  or  equivalent,  %  of  $450 112.50 

Furniture  and  equipment: 

Interest,  ft  of  $60 $15.00 

Insurance,  %  of  $2 50 

Repairs,  #  of  $10 2.50 

Replacement  fund: 

New  furniture,  Y4  of  $15...     $3.75 

Utensils    10.00 

Linen,  table  and  kitchen  ...       3.00 

Gardening  tools    3.00 

19.75 

37.75 

Heat,  1/7  of  $50 $7.15 

Range  coal 25.00 

Gas  12.00 

44 15 


24  His  personal  qualities  also  are  a  factor  in  determining  the 
amount  his  wife  receives.  Given  two  men  of  equal  income, 
equally  admiring  their  wives'  abilities,  one  having  an  open- 
handed  disposition  will  be  likely  to  give  more  freely  than  a 
husband  naturally  close-fisted. 

163 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 


Light,  J4  of  $24  ..................... 

Cleaning  materials,  ^  of  8  ........... 

Wages  : 
Housewife   .........................  $105.00 

Housewife,   management   ...........     17.00 

Houseworker    ......................  292.50 

Extra  assistance   ...................      6.00 

Gardening    .........................     12.00 


$6.00 
2.00 


Telephone,  1/5  of  $24 


Houseworker's  board 


CLOTHING 


$432.50 
4.80 

$1,371.70 
162.50 


$1,209.20 


Overcoats,     suits,     shirts,     underwear, 

nightshirts,      hosiery,      shoes,      over- 

shoes, hats,  umbrellas,  gloves,  hand- 

kerchiefs, collars  and  cuffs,  neckties, 

sundries,    laundry,    coats    and     furs, 

dresses,  waists,  skirts  and  petticoats. 
Husband    ..................  ..........  $108.00  ' 

Wife    ................................  126.00 

Children   .............................  126.00 

-  $360.00 
Wages  : 

Housewife   .........................  $195.00 

Housewife,   management   ...........    33.50 

Houseworker    ......................     67.50 

Extra  assistance  ....................      6.00 

-  302.00 
Laundry  materials    ...................  4.00  ' 

$666.00 
Houseworker's  laundry  ...............  25.00 

-     $641.00 
SHELTER 

Rent,  ft  of  $450  .....................  $337.50 

(Or  y4  of: 

Taxes,  water  rent,  interest  on  value 
of  house,  insurance  on  house,  re- 
pairs to  house) 
Carfare  to  business  ................     30.00 

-  $367.50 
Furniture  and  furnishings: 

Interest,  ^  of  $60  ..................  $45.00 

Insurance,  54  of  $2  .................       1.50 

Repairs,  &  of  $10  .................      7.50 

164 


THE  REVISED  HOUSEHOLD  BUDGET 


Replacement  fund: 
New  furniture,  H  of  $15...  $11.25 

Bed  linen  and  towels 5.00 

$16.25 

$70.25 

Heat,  6/7  of  $50 42.85 

Light,  #  of  $24 18.00 

Cleaning  materials,  Y±  of  $8 6.00 

Wages : 

Housewife   $105.00 

Housewife,   management    17.00 

Houseworker    127.50 

Extra  assistance    9.00 

Care  of  grounds  and  flower  garden..      8.00 

$266.50 

Lodging    8.00 

$779.10 

Houseworker's  lodging  62.50 

$716.60 

ADVANCEMENT 

(Higher  Life) 
Health  (Physical): 

Doctor  $10.00 

Druggist    3.00 

Dentist    5.00 

Oculist    2.00 

Toilet    4.00 

Athletics : 

Dues   $4.00 

Equipment    4.00 

8.00 

'"  Insurance   12.00 

$44.00 

Education  (Mental)  : 

Tuition  and  school  supplies $32.00 

Carfare  to  school  20.00 

Lectures    3.00 

Books    4.00 

Magazines  and  daily  paper  9.00 

Dues  of  educational  associations :      4.00 

4>    $72.00 

Recreation   (Social)  : 

Theatre,  motion  pictures   $8.00 

Entertainments : 

Concerts,  parties,  dances  and  dues 
of  social  clubs  6.00 

165 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 


Playthings $4.00 

Travel : 

Train,  trolley  and  automobile 12.00 

Correspondence    8.00 

Telephone    21.20 

Spending  money   10.00 

$69.20 

Beneficence   (Ethical)  : 

Church    $36.00 

Philanthropy : 

Contributions     $28.00 

Dues   22.00 

50.00 

Gifts  to  friends  10.00 

96.00 

$281.20 
Children — Care,  oversight,  entertaining: 

Wages : 

Houseworker    $30.00 

Housewife   480.00 

$510.00 

$791.20 

$3,358.00 
Overcharge,  see  page  157,  footnote 25.00 

$3,333.00 
Savings    72.00 


$3,405.00 


FOOD 


MEALS  PURCHASED:  Under  this  heading,  in  table  on 
p.  139,  entry  was  made  for  daily  lunches.  Add  here 
board  at  summer  hotel  and  other  extra  meals.  (This 
$12  is  taken  from  the  allowance  made  in  budget  on  p. 
149  for  summer  vacation,  entered  under  Recreation, 
p.  152.) 

RENT  :  One-fourth  of  the  rent  is  charged  against  food, 
because  two  out  of  eight  rooms  are  used  for  preparation 
and  serving  of  food.  If  the  family  lives  in  a  ten-room 
house,  the  fraction  would  be  one-fifth.  One  might  argue 

166 


THE  REVISED  HOUSEHOLD  BUDGET 

that  the  dining-room  is  a  place  where  one  is  sheltered 
while  consuming  food.  But  it  is  desirable  to  be  able  to 
ascertain  from  the  budget  what  is  the  total  expense  of 
food  prepared  in  the  home  compared  with  what  would 
be  the  expense  of  going  out  to  meals.  If  one  rents  an 
apartment  of  six  rooms,  without  dining-room  and  kitchen, 
the  expense  would  be  less  than  for  an  eight-room  apart- 
ment or  house.  The  same  principle  applies  to  the  division 
of  expenses  for  furniture. 

HEAT  :  Only  one-seventh  of  the  coal  consumed  in  the 
furnace  is  charged  against  food,  because  the  kitchen  is 
heated  as  a  by-product  of  the  heat  generated  by  the  range, 
which  is  primarily  used  for  cooking,  leaving  seven  rooms 
to  be  heated  from  the  furnace,  of  which  number  the 
dining-room  is  one. 

WAGES  :  Divide  expenses  under  this  heading  accord- 
ing to  division  of  time  given  in  table  on  p.  157. 

MANAGEMENT:  The  $67.50  in  table  on  p.  157  is 
divided  between  food,  clothing  and  shelter,  in  propor- 
tion to  the  time  the  housewife  gives  to  activities  in  these 
lines.  (The  house  worker's  share  is  so  small  it  has  been 
merged  with  the  housewife's.) 

EXTRA  ASSISTANCE:  Either  to  pay  an  extra  helper 
brought  in,  or  to  cover  payments  to  houseworker  for 
overtime. 

GARDENING:  If  the  husband  raises  vegetables  for  the 
table,  time  spent  in  that  occupation  should  be  entered 
here;  time  of  the  housewife  spent  in  raising  flowers 
would  be  entered  under  Shelter. 

TELEPHONE  :  The  percentage  charged  here  will  depend 
upon  the  amount  of  marketing  done  by  'phone  in  com- 
parison with  its  use  for  other  purposes. 

167 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

CLOTHING 

If  a  sewing  room  is  provided  in  the  house,  make  entries 
for  rent,  furniture,  etc.,  the  same  as  under  Food.  If 
sewing  is  done  in  living  rooms,  consider  their  use  for 
mending  or  manufacture  of  clothing  as  adding  nothing 
to  budget  expenditures,  but  rather  as  a  by-product  of 
shelter.  To  be  accurate  there  should  be  a  small  entry 
for  light  used  while  sewing,  and  for  the  cost  and  care 
of  a  sewing-machine. 

SHELTER 

INTEREST:  If  there  is  a  mortgage  on  the  house,  enter 
here  annual  payments  thereon,  deduct  amount  of  mort- 
gage from  estimated  value  of  house,  and  charge  current 
interest  rate  on  balance. 

LODGING:  Charges  for  room  at  summer  hotel  or  on 
other  pleasure  trips. 

ADVANCEMENT 

INSURANCE:  Entries  here  are  for  a  sinking  fund  to 
meet  expenses  of  births,  deaths,  accidents  and  severe 
illnesses. 

TRAVEL:  In  this  budget  "summer  vacation"  expenses 
are  not  entered  in  a  lump  sum,  but  board  was  given  under 
Food,  lodging  under  Shelter,  and  carfare  here.  The 
amount  allowed  in  this  budget  will  not  be  enough  to  cover 
automobile  expenses.  If  a  person  with  a  salary  of  $2,400 
indulges  in  a  machine,  funds  for  its  maintenance  must  be 
found  by  reducing  some  other  expenditure. 

TELEPHONE:  Some  budget-makers  enter  telephone 
charges  under  Shelter,  as  a  part  of  the  equipment  of  the 
house.  An  exactly  detailed  budget  would  divide  up 

168 


THE  REVISED  HOUSEHOLD  BUDGET 

expenditures  for  telephone  and  carfare  under  each  head- 
ing, according  to  the  purpose  for  which  the  telephone  is 
used  or  a  trip  on  the  cars  is  taken.  The  expenditures  are 
given  as  one  sum  here  (except  use  of  'phone  for  food 
purchase)  to  simplify  account-keeping,  and  because  in 
the  case  of  the  use  of  the  trolley  very  often  one  trip 
combines  several  objects,  such  as  the  purchase  of  cloth- 
ing, a  visit  to  the  dentist  and  attendance  at  the  theatre. 

SPENDING  MONEY:  Covers  such  personal  indulgences 
as  candy,  sodas,  tobacco,  liquors,  etc.  They  are  entered 
under  Recreation  because  they  are  indulged  in  with  the 
idea  of  obtaining  pleasure,  though  their  use  may  not 
contribute  to  Advancement!  As  noted  above,  liquors 
served  with  meals  are  entered  under  Food,  whether  die- 
tetically  valuable  or  valueless. 

SUMMARY 

Through  this  final  readjustment  of  the  budget,  to 
include  the  services  of  the  housewife  and  her  assistants 
and  to  eliminate  the  headings  of  Operation  and  Sundries, 
we  are  enabled  to  ascertain  the  actual  divisions  of  the 
Expenses  in  a  family  where  there  are  three  children,  the 
husband  has  a  $2,400  income  and  a  houseworker  is 
employed.  The  percentages  are:  Food,  35  per  cent.; 
Clothing,  19  per  cent. ;  Shelter,  21  per  cent. ;  Advance- 
ment, 23  per  cent. ;  Savings,  2  per  cent.  Approximately 
this  will  be :  Food,  one-third  ;  Clothing,  one-fifth ;  Shel- 
ter, one-fifth;  Advancement,  one-quarter. 


169 

N 


SECTION  III 
TOTAL  FAMILY  INCOME 

WE  are  now  prepared  to  estimate  the  total  family 
income  where  the  home  is  owned.  The  rental 
value  of  the  property  should  be  added  to  husband's  and 
wife's  income,  which  in  this  case  would  be  $3,345  plus 
$480  (10  per  cent,  on  a  property  valued  at  $4,800).  To 
this  must  be  added  the  rental  value  of  the  furniture  and 
equipment  (10  per  cent,  on  $1,200),  amounting  to  $120. 
Then  add  the  amount  received  for  the  rental  of  the  house- 
worker's  room  (heated  and  lighted),  her  food  (not  only 
the  cost  of  the  food  consumed,  but  its  preparation  in  the 
time  paid  for  by  her  employer),  and  her  laundry,  a  total 
of  $5  weekly,  or  $250  for  fifty  weeks.  The  three  children, 
who  are  below  the  "working"  age,  are,  however,  able  to 
contribute  somewhat  to  the  family  income,  and  if  the 
oldest  does  two  hours'  work  each  week-day,  valued  at 
twelve  cents,  and  the  second  child  an  hour's  work  valued 
at  ten  cents,  a  total  of  $2  weekly,  or  $104  a  year,  will 
be  added  to  the  family  income.  This  much  they  might 
be  taught  to  do  to  contribute  toward  their  "bread  and 
butter."  Work  more  than  this  might  be  paid  for. 

Furthermore,  we  must  not  overlook  the  family  income 
from  social  durable  consumption  goods,  such  as  the  free 
use  of  public  schools,  libraries,  parks,  streets,  lighting, 
sanitation,  health  and  police  protection,  which,  if  paid 
for  at  commercial  rates,  in  a  large  city  like  Philadelphia 
might  be  roughly  estimated  at  not  less  than  ten  times  the 
cost  of  taxation  ($48,  $1  on  each  $100  worth  of  prop- 
erty), or  $480.  Add  $21  as  a  possible  cash  value  of 

170 


TOTAL   FAMILY    INCOME 

gifts  received  annually.  This  gives  a  grand  total  of 
$4,800  annual  income,  which  far  more  accurately  repre- 
sents the  actual  degree  of  comfortable  living  of  the  family 
than  the  crude  statement  of  the  husband's  salary  as 
representing  the  family  income.  This  may  be  summar- 
ized thus: 

Husband's  salary  $2,400.00 

Wife's  salary 945.00 

Rental  of  house  to  family 480.00 

Rental  of  furniture  and  equipment  to  family 120.00 

Board  and  lodging  of  houseworker 250.00 

Children's  assistance  104.00 

Benefits  from  social  durable  consumption  goods 480.00 

Gifts 21.00 

$4,800.00 


171 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  ECONOMISTS  AND  HOUSEHOLD 
PRODUCTIVE  ACTIVITIES 


THE  ECONOMISTS  AND  HOUSEHOLD  PRODUCTIVE 
ACTIVITIES 

1"F  household  work  is  productive  labor,  and  if  the  total 
•*•  amount  of  its  value  compares  favorably  with  the  out- 
put of  industrial  activities  in  factories  and  on  farms, 
then  one  would  expect  to  find  considerable  recognition 
of  this  fact  in  the  writings  of  the  economists.  A  brief 
survey  of  the  works  of  many  of  the  best  known  writers 
leads  to  the  conclusion  that  heretofore  this  field  of  eco- 
nomic activity  has  not  been  given  the  prominence  which 
its  importance  warrants.1  In  Ravenhill  and  SchifFs 
"Household  Administration"  the  assertion  is  made  that 
(p.  123)  "The  household  has  been  treated  by  economists 
with  curious  negligence";  and  (p.  130)  "The  work 
accomplished  by  the  wife  in  the  household  has  never  yet 
received  its  full  acknowledgment  from  the  economists." 


1  Possibly  this  is  due  to  the  fact  that  economists  have  nearly 
all  been  males,  an  illustration,  therefore,  of  what  Mrs.  Oilman 
has  indicated  in  the  title  of  her  book,  "The  Man-Made  World; 
Our  Androcentric  Culture." 

175 


SECTION  I 
XENOPHON 

THE  earliest  noteworthy  treatise  on  household  activi- 
ties is  by  Xenophon;  he  is  the  author  of  "The 
GEconomicus ;  A  Treatise  on  the  Management  of  a  Farm 
and  Household."2  This  work  was  written  in  the  fourth 
century  before  Christ.  The  argument  is  in  the  form  of 
a  discussion  between  Socrates,  the  famous  philosopher, 
and  Critobulus. 

The  treatise  opens  with  a  definition  of  economics  as 
"household  management,"  using  the  word  house  (oikos) 
in  the  sense  of  "estate";  "everything  that  a  person  has 
is  comprehended  under  this  term."  (Chap.  1,  par.  1-5.) 

The  main  purpose  of  this  treatise  is  to  show  that  the 
husband  not  only  directs  the  farm,  but  is  the  real  head 
of  the  house  in  that  he  is  expected  to  instruct  his  wife 
in  household  management  and  is  therefore  responsible  if 
his  household  is  poorly  managed.  Socrates  says:  "I 
can  also  show  that  some  men  have  so  managed  their 
wives,  as  to  find  in  them  fellow-helpers  in  improving 
their  fortunes,  whilst  others  have  dealt  with  them  in  such 
a  way  that  they  have  in  a  great  degree  ruined  them." 
"But  in  these  cases,  my  dear  Socrates,  ought  we  to  blame 
the  husband  or  the  wife  ?"  "If  a  sheep,"  replied  Socrates, 
"is  in  ill  condition,  we  generally  blame  the  shepherd ;  if 
a  horse  is  mischievous,  we  impute  the  fault  to  the  groom ; 
and  as  to  a  wife,  if,  after  being  taught  what  is  right, 


2  Translated  by  Rev.  J.  S.  Watson,  in  Bohn's  Classical  Library, 
1905  edition. 

176 


XENOPHON 

she  conducts  herself  badly,  perhaps  she  ought  justly  to 
bear  the  blame;  but  if  her  husband  does  not  teach  her 
what  is  right  and  proper,  but  exacts  service  from  her 
while  she  is  ignorant  of  what  she  ought  to  do,  would  he 
not  justly  be  visited  with  condemnation?  But  by  all 
means  tell  us  the  truth,  Critobulus,  is  there  anyone  to 
whom  you  intrust  a  greater  number  of  important  affairs 
than  to  your  wife  ?"  "There  is  no  one,"  replied  Critobu- 
lus. "And  is  there  anyone  with  whom  you  hold  fewer 
discussions  than  with  your  wife?"  "If  there  is  anyone, 
there  are  certainly  not  many."  "Did  you  marry  her  when 
she  was  quite  young,  or,  at  least,  when  she  had  seen  and 
heard  as  little  of  things  as  was  well  possible?"  "Cer- 
tainly I  did."  .  .  .  "But  I  consider  that  a  wife,  who 
is  a  good  partner  in  household  management,  has  equal 
influence  with  her  husband  for  their  common  prosperity. 
Resources  come  into  the  house  for  the  most  part  by  the 
exertions  of  the  husband,  but  the  larger  portion  of  them 
is  expended  under  the  management  of  the  wife,  and,  if 
affairs  be  well  ordered,  the  estate  is  improved;  but  if 
they  are  conducted  badly,  the  property  is  diminished." 
(Chap.  3,  par.  10-15.) 

Socrates  then  tells  Critobulus  that  as  he  is  not  learned 
irf  economics  he  will  narrate  a  conversation  he  had  with 
Ischomachus,  who  had  the  reputation  of  being  an  excel- 
lent householder.  Socrates  says:  "I  would  very  gladly 
be  permitted  to  ask  you,  Ischomachus,  whether  you 
instructed  your  wife  yourself,  so  that  she  might  be  quali- 
fied as  she  ought  to  be,  or  whether,  when  you  received 
her  from  her  father  and  mother,  she  was  possessed  of 
sufficient  knowledge  to  manage  what  belongs  to  her?" 
"And  how,  my  dear  Socrates,"  said  he,  "could  she  have 
had  sufficient  knowledge  when  I  took  her,  since  she  came 
to  my  house  when  she  was  not  fifteen  years  old,  and  had 

177 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

spent  the  preceding  part  of  her  life  under  the  strictest 
restraint,  in  order  that  she  might  see  as  little,  hear  as 
little,  and  ask  as  few  questions  as  possible?"  (Chap.  7, 
par.  4-5.)  Ischomachus  then  begins  the  instruction  of  his 
wife.  That  the  idea  that  woman's  place  is  in  the  home 
is  not  a  modern  one  is  shown  by  the  following  para- 
graphs :  "The  gods  have  plainly  adapted  the  nature  of 
the  woman  for  works  and  duties  within  doors  and  that 
of  the  man  for  works  and  duties  without  doors."  (Par. 
22.)  "For  it  is  more  becoming  for  the  woman  to  stay 
within  doors  than  to  roam  abroad,  but  to  the  man  it  is 
less  creditable  to  remain  at  home  than  to  attend  to  things 
out  of  doors."  (Par.  30.) 

Housewifery  is  recognized  as  involving  both  skill  and 
pleasure.  "Some  of  your  occupations,  my  dear  wife," 
continued  Ischomachus,  "will  be  pleasing  to  you.  For 
instance,  when  you  take  a  young  woman  who  does  not 
know  how  to  spin,  and  make  her  skillful  at  it,  and  she 
thus  becomes  of  twice  as  much  value  to  you.  Or  when 
you  take  one  who  is  ignorant  of  the  duties  of  a  house- 
keeper or  servant,  and,  having  made  her  accomplished, 
trustworthy  and  handy,  render  her  of  the  highest  value." 
(Par.  41.) 

The  next  chapter  is  a  dissertation  on  the  importance 
and  beauty  of  order  in  a  house.  That  the  Greek  love  of 
beauty  should  appear  in  the  management  of  the  household 
is  characteristic.  "But  how  beautiful  an  appearance  it 
has  when  shoes,  for  instance,  of  whatever  kind  they  are, 
are  arranged  in  order;  how  beautiful  it  is  to  see  gar- 
ments, of  whatever  kind,  deposited  in  their  several  places ; 
how  beautiful  it  is  to  see  bed-clothes,  and  brazen  vessels, 
and  table  furniture,  so  arranged;  and  (what,  most  of  all, 
a  person  might  laugh  at,  not  indeed  a  grave  person,  but 
a  jester),  I  say,  that  pots  have  a  graceful  appearance 

178 


XENOPHON 

when  they  are  placed  in  regular  order.  Other  articles 
somehow  appear,  too,  when  regularly  arranged,  more 
beautiful  in  consequence ;  for  the  several  sorts  of  vessels 
seem  like  so  many  choral  bands;  and  the  space  that  is 
between  them  pleases  the  eye,  when  every  sort  of  vessel 
is  set  clear  of  it;  just  as  a  body  of  singers  and  dancers, 
moving  in  a  circle,  is  not  only  in  itself  a  beautiful  sight, 
but  the  space  in  the  middle  of  it,  being  open  and  clear, 
is  agreeable  to  the  eye."  (Chap.  8,  par.  19-20.) 

His  wife  then  asks  Ischomachus  to  arrange  the  various 
articles  as  he  thinks  best,  and  he  proceeds :  "Thus  the 
inner  chamber,  being  in  a  secure  part  of  the  house,  calls 
for  the  most  valuable  couch-coverings  and  vessels;  the 
dry  parts  of  the  building  for  the  corn;  the  cool  places 
for  the  wine ;  and  the  well-lighted  portions  for  such 
articles  of  workmanship,  and  vases,  as  require  a  clear 
light."  (Chap.  9,  par.  3.)  "We  then  proceeded  to 
classify  our  goods.  ...  Of  utensils  there  were 
distinct  collections,  one  of  instruments  for  spinning, 
another  of  those  for  preparing  corn,  another  of  those  for 
cooking,  another  of  those  for  the  bath,  another  of  those 
for  kneading  bread,  another  of  those  for  the  table. 
.  .  .  Of  the  housekeeper  we  made  choice  after  con- 
sidering which  of  the  female  servants  appeared  to  have 
most  self-restraint  in  eating,  and  wine,  and  sleep,  and 
converse  with  the  male  sex;  and,  in  addition  to  this, 
which  seemed  to  have  the  best  memory,  and  which 
appeared  to  have  forethought,  that  she  might  not  incur 
punishment  from  us  for  neglect,  and  to  consider  how, 
by  gratifying  us,  she  might  gain  some  mark  of  approba- 
tion in  return."  (Par.  6-11.) 

That  Dame  Fashion,  with  all  her  vagaries,  is  an  ancient 
dame,  is  entertainingly  shown  in  the  next  chapter  on  ad- 
monitions as  to  dress.  Ischomachus  says  of  his  wife : 

179 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

"Seeing  her  one  day,  Socrates,  painted  over  with  a  great 
deal  of  white  lead,  that  she  might  appear  still  fairer  than 
she  really  was,  and  with  a  great  deal  of  vermilion,  that  her 
complexion  might  seem  more  rosy  than  its  natural  hue, 
and  having  on  high-heeled  shoes,  that  she  might  seem 
tall  beyond  her  real  stature,  'Tell  me/  said  I,  'my  dear 
wife,  whether  you  would  consider  me,  as  a  sharer  of 
my  fortunes  with  you,  more  worthy  of  your  love,  if  I 
should  show  you  what  I  really  possessed,  and  should 
neither  boast  that  I  have  more  than  really  belongs  to  me, 
nor  conceal  any  portion  of  what  I  have;  or  if,  on  the 
contrary,  I  should  endeavor  to  deceive  you  by  saying 
that  I  have  more  than  is  really  mine,  and  by  showing 
you  counterfeit  money,  and  necklaces  of  gilt  wood,  and 
purple  garments  of  a  fading  colour,  pretending  that  they 
are  of  the  true  quality?'  She,  instantly  replying,  said, 
'Hush!  may  you  never  act  in  such  a  way;  for  if  you 
were  to  do  so,  I  could  never  love  you  from  my  heart.' 
.  .  .  'Consider  accordingly  that  I  also,  my  dear  wife, 
am  not  better  pleased  with  the  colour  of  white  lead  and 
red  dye  than  with  your  own ;  but  as  the  gods  have  made 
horses  the  most  beautiful  objects  of  contemplation  to 
horses,  oxen  to  oxen,  and  sheep  to  sheep,  so  men  think 
that  the  body  in  its  natural  state  is  the  most  agreeable 
object  of  contemplation  to  men/  "  His  wife  then,  he 
says,  "asked  me  if  I  could  recommend  her  any  course 
by  which  she  might  render  herself  really  good-looking, 
and  not  merely  make  herself  be  thought  so.  ...  .  I 
told  her  that  it  would  be  good  exercise  to  wet  and  knead 
the  bread,  and  to  shake  out  and  put  up  the  clothes  and 
bed-coverings.  I  assured  her  that  if  she  thus  exercised 
herself  she  would  take  her  food  with  a  better  appetite, 
would  enjoy  better  health,  and  would  assume  a  more 
truly  excellent  complexion."  "And  now,  Socrates," 

180 


XENOPHON 

added  he,  "my  wife  regulates  her  conduct,  be  assured, 
as  I  taught  her."     (Chap.  10,  par.  2-13.) 

The  remaining  half  of  the  "CEconomicus"  is  devoted 
to  a  discussion  of  the  work  outside  of  the  house,  that  is, 
to  the  management  of  the  farm. 


181 


SECTION  II 

ALBERTI 
A  FIFTEENTH  CENTURY  FOLLOWER  OF  XENOPHON 

AN  interesting  work  based  on  Xenophon's  "(Economi- 
cus"  appeared  about  1444  and  is  variously  ascribed 
to  Leo(n)  Battista  Alberti  and  to  Agnolo  Pandolfini. 
Without  going  into  the  controversy  as  to  which  of  these 
two  Italians  is  the  author  of  the  original  work  and  which 
the  plagiarist,  we  will  quote  from  J.  A.  Symonds'  "The 
Renaissance  in  Italy"  a  brief  paragraph  concerning  each 
writer. 

"Alberti  was  the  greatest  writer  of  Italian  prose  in 
the  fifteenth  century.  He  exercised  an  influence  over  the 
spirit  of  his  age  and  race  second  only  to  Lionardo 
(Leonardo  da  Vinci).  His  principal  prose  work  (the 
'Trattato')3  was  written  to  instruct  the  members  of  his 
family  in  the  customs  of  their  ancestors  and  to  perpetuate 
those  virtues  of  domestic  life  which  he  regarded  as  the 
sound  foundation  of  a  commonwealth.  The  first  book 
establishes  the  principles  of  domestic  morality  on  which 
a  family  exists  and  flourishes.  The  second  provides  for 
its  propagation  through  marriage.  The  third  shows  how 
its  resources  are  to  be  distributed  and  preserved." 

In  "The  Age  of  Despots"  (1897  Ed.,  p.  190),  Symonds 
says,  "In  the  bourgeois  household  described  by  Pandol- 
fini no  one  can  be  indolent.  The  character  of  a  good 
housewife  is  sketched  very  minutely.  The  children's 


8  It  was  republished  in  the  last  century  and  used  in  Italian 
schools  as  a  text-book  in  reading. 

182 


ALBERTI 

dress,  the  boys7  pocket  money,  the  food  of  the  common 
table  are  all  described  with  some  minuteness."  He 
quotes :  "In  order  to  be  successful  in  the  conduct  of  the 
family,  a  man  must  choose  a  large  and  healthy  house, 
where  the  whole  of  his  offspring,  children  and  grand- 
children, may  live  together.  He  must  own  an  estate. 
The  main  food  of  the  family  will  be  bread  and  wine.  In 
order  to  meet  expenses,  some  trade  must  be  followed,  silk 
or  wool  manufacture  being  preferred;  and  in  this  the 
whole  family  should  join,  the  head  distributing  work  of 
various  kinds  to  his  children,  as  he  deems  most  fitting, 
and  always  employing  them  rather  than  strangers." 

In  reading  these  books  one  is  struck  with  the  very  close 
resemblance  to  the  "CEconomicus"  of  Xenophon.  But  it 
never  occurred  to  the  writer  to  state  that  he  was  quoting 
from  his  master,  for  in  that  epoch  it  was  customary  for 
artist  and  author  to  draw  material  from  any  source  with- 
out acknowledgment.  The  author,  however,  is  less  demo- 
cratic and  more  patriarchal  than  his  model,  thereby 
reflecting  the  difference  in  spirit  of  the  Greek  life  and 
that  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

Let  us  get  acquainted  with  the  language  of  the  author.4 
"Conosco  prima,  figiulo  miei,  in  questa  mia  maggiore  eta 
fatto  piu  prudente,  la  masserizia  esser  cosa  utilissima,  e 
chi  gitta  via  il  suo  esser  matto."  "I  know,  first  of  all, 
my  sons,  in  this  my  advanced  age  made  wiser,  the  care 
of  the  household  (footnote  by  Italian  editor,  'la  masserizia 
=  il  risparmio,  "thrift";  or  'la  savia  economia/  "wise 
economy")  to  be  the  thing  most  useful,  and  who  throws 
away  (wastes)  his  own  (what  he  has)  is  mad." 


*  Quotations  are  from  the  text  of  Pandolfini  and  the  transla- 
tion is  literal  rather  than  literary. 

183 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

This  is  the  keynote  of  the  book.  In  its  perusal  one  is 
many  times  strongly  impressed  with  the  feeling  that  the 
American  idea  that  the  European  is  especially  noted  for 
thriftiness  has  its  basis  in  a  trait  of  ancient  lineage.  To 
us  it  seems  that  the  worthy  writer  carries  this  virtue  to 
an  extreme  which  would  make  life  in  his  household  rather 
exacting  as  regards  the  partner  of  his  joys. 

The  next  quotation  is,  of  all  ideas  expressed  in  the 
book,  perhaps  the  most  literally  copied  from  Xenophon. 
"When  my  wife,  your  mother,  had  been  living  for  a  few 
days  in  the  house  and  had  become  settled  and  interest 
in  the  house  commenced  to  delight  her,  I  took  her  by  the 
hand  and  showed  her  the  whole  house  and  pointed  out 
to  her  that  up  above  was  the  place  for  grains  and  down 
below  the  room  for  wine  and  wood,  and  I  showed  her 
where  one  puts  everything  necessary  for  the  house,  and 
there  was  not  any  furnishing  in  the  house  that  she  did 
not  see  where  best  it  should  be  put  and  which  she  did 
not  learn  from  me  what  it  was  used  for."  This,  it  must 
be  remembered,  is  the  picture  of  an  establishment  main- 
tained by  the  upper  classes,  in  which  the  woman's  work 
was  principally  management,  for  "Many  things  it  would 
be  unbecoming  for  you  to  do,  there  being  others  to  do 
them,"  says  her  lord.  And  again,  "I  do  not  wish  that 
you  should  be  one  who  does  everything."  "It  is  fitting 
for  you  in  the  more  humble  things  to  command." 

There  is  a  modern  touch  in  the  magnanimous  state- 
ment that,  "All  these  goods  of  ours,  this  household,  the 
sons  born  and  which  will  be  born  are  ours,  yours  as  well 
as  mine,  and,  therefore,  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  do  our 
duty  and  preserve  that  which  belongs  to  one  and  to  the 
other  (both  of  us  together).  Therefore,  I  will  procure 
abroad  that  which  you  have  need  of  in  the  house  and  you 
will  look  to  it  that  all  is  arranged  properly  and  made 

184 


ALBERTI 

good  use  of."  One  might  glean  from  these  statements 
an  apparent  recognition  of  the  equality  of  woman  in  the 
home,  but  elsewhere  in  the  book  the  author  shows  in 
unmistakable  terms,  that  he  considers  himself  the 
supreme  ruler,  even  in  minor  household  details.  The 
book  is  written  in  the  form  of  conversations  which  the 
father  is  having  with  his  sons,  and  he  says  approvingly 
of  his  wife,  "Then  she  answered  me  with  humility  and 
modesty  and  said,  that  her  mother  had  taught  her  to 
spin  and  to  sew  and  now  she  was  learning  from  me  and 
would  learn  how  to  manage  a  household."  Evidently,  a 
young  bride  fresh  from  her  mother's  sheltering  care 
cannot  be  expected  to  know  how  to  arrange  and  order  a 
household  until  duly  instructed  by  her  husband! 

Mark  this  delicious  picture  of  Italian  life:  "It  is  be- 
coming for  you  not  to  sit  all  day  long  with  your  elbows 
on  the  window,  as  do  certain  idle  gossips,  who  all  day 
hold  their  sewing  in  their  hand,  which  they  never  finish. 
Above  all  things,  flee  laziness  and  always  busy  yourself 
at  something  and  see  to  it  that  others  busy  themselves 
also,  because  this  activity  will  be  of  great  benefit  to  the 
management  of  the  household,  and  will  be  very  useful  to 
you,  because  then  you  will  dine  with  better  appetite,  you 
^ill  be  healthier  for  it,  a  better  color,  fresh  and  beauti- 
ful, and  the  house  will  be  better  regulated  and  they 
(servants)  will  not  be  able  to  squander  the  goods." 
Even  the  picture  of  his  wife's  enhanced  loveliness 
through  household  exercise  failed  to  entice  this  worthy 
gentleman  from  the  insistence  upon  thrift! 

But  there  was  a  servant  problem  in  the  middle  ages — 
of  course.  "When  servants  are  not  in  fear  of  being 
watched  and  have  not  one  who  overlooks  and  corrects 
them,  then  they  throw  away  (even)  more  than  they 

185 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

waste."  "It  is  necessary  to  put  each  thing  in  the  place 
best  for  preserving  and  keeping  it,  as  grain  in  a  fresh 
place  open  to  the  north;  wine  in  a  place  where  there  is 
neither  cold  nor  too  much  heat  nor  wind  nor  any  bad 
odor.  They  should  often  be  looked  at  so  that  if  by  chance 
they  begin  to  rot  or  spoil,  immediately  one  can  remedy  it, 
either  by  using  them  before  they  are  made  absolutely  use- 
less or  in  a  way  that  all  is  not  lost." 

Apparently,  the  man  was  the  buyer  in  those  patriarchal 
days,  when,  no  doubt,  he  purchased  goods  in  considerable 
quantities  for  his  large  household,  for  after  telling  his 
wife  to  ascertain  "how  much  and  for  what  there  must 
be  provision  made,"  "immediately,"  he  says,  "you  will 
tell  me  before  it  is  lacking  altogether,  so  that  I  may  get 
it  abroad  better  and  at  less  expense.  What  is  bought 
in  haste  is  most  often  badly  seasoned,  dirty,  spoils  quickly 
and  costs  more  and  thus  one  throws  away  as  much  or 
more  than  one  wastes  of  it."  That  it  pays  to  buy  the 
best  is  also  a  piece  of  household  wisdom,  which  this 
shrewd  patrician  understood.  "If  you  use  strong  wine 
and  spoiled  salt  meats,  or  anything  else  not  good  for 
feeding  the  household,  no  one  will  bother  to  be  saving  of 
it;  it  is  thrown  out,  poured  out,  no  one  cares  about  it; 
each  one  is  vexed  about  it  and  they  do  thus — they  write 
this  down  as  a  sign  of  avarice.  .  .  .  But  if  you 
have  good  wine,  best  bread  and  other  things  suitable,  the 
household  is  well  content  and  joyous  and  serves  you 
with  good  will,  and  the  steward  uses  thrift  with  good 
things ;  with  bad  things,  together  with  the  other  servants, 
he  feels  himself  aggrieved.  .  .  .  Good  things  always 
last  better  than  poor  things.  Look  at  this  tunic  of  mine. 

186 


ALBERTI 

I  have  already  used  it  many,  many  years.  I  was  well 
dressed  in  it  for  many  years  at  the  festivals,  and  now  it 
is  still  not  unbecoming  for  everyday  wear.  If  I  then 
had  not  chosen  the  best  Florentine  cloth  I  would  since 
have  had  two  others  made,  nor  would  I  be  as  well  dressed 
as  in  this." 


187 


SECTION  III 
ADAM  SMITH 

ADAM  SMITH  is  generally  recognized  as  the  "Father 
of  Modern  Political  Economy."  His  great  work, 
"The  Wealth  of  Nations,"  appeared  in  England  in  1776. 
In  this  "Inquiry  into  the  Nature  and  Causes  of  the  Wealth 
of  Nations,"  the  author  makes  an  interesting  distinction 
in  kinds  of  labor  as  judged  by  the  products.  "There  is 
one  sort  of  labor  which  adds  to  the  value  of  the  subject 
upon  which  it  is  bestowed ;  there  is  another  which  has  no 
such  effect.  The  former,  as  it  produces  a  value,  may  be 
called  productive,  the  latter,  unproductive  labor."  "The 
labor  of  a  menial  servant5  adds  to  the  value  of  nothing." 
"The  maintenance  of  a  menial  servant  never  is  restored. 
A  man  grows  rich  by  employing  a  multitude  of  manufac- 
turers; he  grows  poor  by  maintaining  a  multitude  of 
servants.  The  labor  of  the  latter,  however,  has  its 
value,  and  deserves  its  reward  as  well  as  the  former. 
But  the  labor  of  the  manufacturer  fixes  and  realizes 
itself  in  some  particular  subject  or  vendible  commodity, 
which  lasts  for  some  time,  at  least,  after  that  labor  is 
past.  It  is,  as  it  were,  a  certain  quantity  of  labor  stocked 
and  stored  up  to  be  employed,  if  necessary,  upon  some 
other  occasion.  That  subject,  or  what  is  the  same  thing, 
the  price  of  that  subject,  can  afterwards,  if  necessary, 
put  into  motion  a  quantity  of  labor  equal  to  that  which 


B  The  word  menial  signified  at  first,  "attached  to  a  household." 
Later  the  idea  of  servility  crept  in.  It  is  used  to  designate 
domestics. 

188 


ADAM  SMITH 

had  originally  produced  it.  The  labor  of  the  menial 
servant,  on  the  contrary,  does  not  fix  or  realize  itself 
in  any  particular  subject  or  vendible  commodity.  His 
services  generally  perish  in  the  very  instant  of  their  per- 
formance, and  seldom  leave  any  trace  of  value  behind 
them,  for  which  an  equal  quantity  of  service  could  after- 
wards be  procured.  The  labor  of  some  of  the  most 
respectable  orders  in  the  society  is,  like  that  of  menial 
servants,  unproductive  of  any  value,  such  as  that  of  the 
sovereign,  officers  of  justice  and  war,  churchmen,  lawyers, 
musicians,  dancers,  etc."6  This  distinction  between  pro- 
ductive and  unproductive  labor  has  been  abandoned  by 
economists,  who  include  in  wealth,  services,  as  well  as 
commodities.7 


•Smith,   "Wealth   of   Nations"    (Caiman    Ed.),    1904,   Vol.   I, 
Bk.  II,  Chapter  III. 
7  See  page  17,  supra. 

189 


SECTION  IV 

MCCULLOCH 

IN  "The  Principles  of  Political  Economy"  (1825), 
J.  R.  McCulloch  takes  in  regard  to  servants  exactly 
the  position  which  is  taken  in  regard  to  the  housewife, 
in  Dr.  Devine's  recent  treatise  on  "The  Economic  Func- 
tion of  Women."  He  quotes  from  Adam  Smith :  "The 
labor  of  a  menial  servant  .  .  .  adds  to  the  value  of 
nothing"  and  so  is  unproductive  labor,  even  though  such 
services  are  "often  of  the  highest  utility,"  but  "these 
services,  however  useful,  do  not  augment  the  wealth  of 
the  country ;  and,  consequently,  that  the  commodities  con- 
sumed by  this  class  are  unproductively  consumed,  and 
have  a  tendency  to  impoverish,  not  to  enrich,  the  society."8 
Commenting  on  this  McCulloch  says:  "Dr.  Smith  says 
that  a  menial  servant's  labor  is  unproductive,  because  it  is 
not  realized  in  a  vendible  commodity,  while  the  labor  of 
the  manufacturer  is  productive,  because  it  is  so  realized. 
But  of  what  is  the  labor  of  the  manufacturer  really  pro- 
ductive ?  Does  it  not  consist  exclusively  of  the  comforts 
and  conveniences  required  for  the  use  and  accommoda- 
tion of  society?  The  manufacturer  is  not  a  producer  of 
matter,  but  of  utility  only.  And  is  it  not  obvious  that 
the  labor  of  the  menial  servant  is  also  productive  of 
utility?  It  is  universally  allowed,  that  the  labor  of  the 
husbandman  who  raises  corn,  beef  and  other  articles  of 
provision  is  productive;  but  if  so,  why  is  the  labor  of 
the  menial  servant  who  performs  the  necessary  and  in- 


1  "Wealth  of  Nations,"  Cannan  Edition,  1904,  page  313. 

190 


McCULLOCH 

dispensable  task  of  preparing  and  dressing  these  articles, 
and  fitting  them  to  be  used,  to  be  set  down  as  unpro- 
ductive? It  is  clear  to  demonstration,  that  there  is  no 
difference  whatever  between  the  two  species  of  industry 
— that  they  are  either  both  productive,  or  both  unpro- 
ductive. To  produce  a  fire,  it  is  just  as  necessary  that 
coals  should  be  carried  from  the  cellar  to  the  grate,  as 
that  they  should  be  carried  from  the  bottom  of  the  mine 
to  the  surface  of  the  earth;  and  if  it  is  said  that  the 
miner  is  a  productive  laborer,  must  we  not  also  say  the 
same  of  the  servant,  who  is  employed  to  make  and  mend 
the  fire?  The  whole  of  Dr.  Smith's  reasoning  proceeds 
on  a  false  hypothesis.  He  has  made  a  distinction  where 
there  is  none,  and  where  it  is  not  in  the  nature  of  things, 
there  can  be  any.  The  end  of  all  human  exertion  is  the 
same — that  is,  to  increase  the  sum  of  necessaries,  com- 
forts and  enjoyments;  and  it  must  be  left  to  the  judg- 
ment of  everyone  to  determine  what  proportion  of  these 
comforts  he  will  have  in  the  shape  of  menial  services, 
and  what  in  the  shape  of  material  products.  It  is  true, 
as  has  been  sometimes  stated,  that  the  results  of  the 
labor  of  the  menial  servant  are  seldom  capable  of  being 
estimated  in  the  same  way  as  the  results  of  the  agri- 
culturist, manufacturer,  or  merchant ;  but  they  are  not, 
on  that  account,  the  less  real  or  valuable.  Could  the 
same  quantity  of  work  be  performed  by  those  who  are 
called  productive  laborers,  were  it  not  for  the  assistance 
they  derive  from  those  who  are  falsely  called  unpro- 
ductive? A  merchant  or  banker  who  is  making  £5,000 
or  £10,000  a  year  by  his  business  may  perhaps  be  ex- 
pending £1,000  on  his  servants;  now  it  is  plain,  that  if 
he  tries  to  save  this  sum,  he  can  do  so  only  by  turning 
his  servants  adrift,  and  becoming  a  coachman,  footman 
and  washerwoman  for  himself;  and,  if  he  does  this,  he 

191 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

will,  instead  of  making  £5,000  or  £10,000  a  year,  be  most 
probably  unable  to  make  even  £50 !  No  doubt  a  man  will 
be  ruined  if  he  keeps  more  servants  than  he  has  occasion 
for,  or  than  he  can  afford  to  pay ;  but  his  ruin  would  be 
equally  certain  were  he  to  purchase  an  excess  of  food 
or  clothes,  or  to  employ  more  workmen  in  any  branch  of 
manufacture,  than  are  required  to  carry  it  on  or  than 
his  capital  could  employ.  To  keep  two  ploughmen,  when 
one  only  might  suffice,  is  just  as  improvident  and  waste- 
ful expenditure  as  it  is  to  keep  two  footmen  to  do  the 
business  of  one.  It  is  in  the  extravagant  quantity  of  the 
commodities  we  consume,  or  of  the  labor  we  employ,  and 
not  in  the  particular  species  of  commodities  or  labor, 
that  we  must  seek  for  the  causes  of  impoverishment."9 


8  McCulloch,  1825  Ed.,  pages  407-408. 

192 


SECTION  V 
CAREY 

THE  earliest  writer  on  economics  in  America  who 
holds  high  rank  is  Henry  C.  Carey,  of  Philadelphia. 
His  "Principles  of  Political  Economy"  appeared  in  1837. 
He  quotes  approvingly  Senior's  criticism  of  Adam 
Smith's  division  of  labor  into  productive  and  unproduc- 
tive (Senior,  pp.  51-3)  and  of  products  into  services  and 
commodities.10  In  order  to  demonstrate  that  "the  idea 
of  exchange  is  inseparately  connected  with  that  of  value," 
Carey  says  of  a  primitive  family,  "If,  instead  of  finding 
a  neighbor,  A  has  been  so  fortunate  as  to  obtain  a  wife, 
the  same  system  of  exchange  would  have  been  established. 
He  would  take  the  den,  and  she  would  cook  the  meat 
and  convert  the  skins  into  clothing.  He  would  raise  the 
flax,  and  she  would  convert  it  into  linen.  If  the  family 
became  numerous,  one  would  cultivate  the  earth,  and  a 
second  would  supply  the  fish  and  other  animal  foods 
necessary  for  their  support,  while  a  third  would  be  en- 
gaged in  the  management  of  the  household,  in  the  prepa- 
ration of  food,  and  in  the  manufacture  of  clothing.  Here 
would  be  a  system  of  exchange  as  complete  as  that  of 
Cornhill,  or  Broadway.  The  only  difference  would  be 
that  value  would  not  be  indicated  by  price.  In  those 
larger  communities,  in  which  there  is  no  separate  prop- 
erty, the  exchangeable  value  of  the  products  of  labor  is 
as  well  settled  as  in  London,  or  Paris." 

This  is  exactly  the  position  taken  in  this  study  of 
housework, — that  it  has  exchange  value,  even  if  it  is  not 
measured  in  price. 

Carey,  pages  3-9. 

193 


SECTION  VI 
MILL 

JOHN  STUART  MILL,  one  of  the  best  known  of  the 
economists,  in  his  "Political  Economy"  (1848),  notes 
the  fact  that  women's  wages  are  lower  than  men's,  and 
adds,  "Domestic  servants'  wages,  speaking  generally,  are 
not  determined  by  competition,  but  are  greatly  in  excess 
of  the  market  value  of  labour."11  "Servants  are  paid 
wages  higher  than  the  market  rate,  for  such  reasons  as 
ostentation,  to  get  cheerful  service,  to  have  servants  stay, 
etc.  Liberality,  generosity  and  the  credit  of  the  employer, 
are  motives  which  .  .  .  preclude  taking  the  utmost 
advantage  of  competition."  "There  are  kinds  of  labour 
of  which  the  wages  are  fixed  by  custom,  and  not  by  com- 
petition," as  that  of  women,  servants,  doctors,  lawyers 
and  others.12 

In  "Essays  on  Some  Unsettled  Questions  of  Political 
Economy,"  written  in  1829-30,  Mill  says,13  that  "there  is 
labour  which  is  partly  productive  and  partly  unproduc- 
tive." "Such  are  the  labour  and  the  wages  of  domestic 
servants.  Such  persons  are  entertained  mainly  as  sub- 
servient to  mere  enjoyment ;  but  most  of  them  occasion- 
ally and  some  habitually,  render  services  which  must  be 
considered  as  of  a  productive  nature ;  such  as  that  of 
cookery,  the  last  stage  in  the  manufacture  of  food, 
[italics  mine]  or  gardening,  a  branch  of  agriculture." 


11  Mill,  page  490. 

12  Ibid.,  page  493. 

"Third  Edition,  1877,  page  85. 

194 


SECTION  VII 
PATTEN 

r  I  ^HE  first  economist  to  give  special  attention  to 
-•-  woman  and  her  work  in  the  home  is  Prof.  S.  N. 
Patten  (for  many  years  the  honored  head  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Economics  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania), 
whose  "Premises  of  Political  Economy"  appeared  in 
1885.  In  a  chapter  on  "The  Social  Causes  Producing  a 
High  Price  of  Food,"  we  find  the  following  suggestive 
paragraph :  "There  is  another  important  circumstance 
affecting  the  consumption  of  food  in  the  degree  of  ex- 
clusiveness  of  family  life.  Where  each  family  lives  in 
seclusion,  having  a  private  house,  preparing  its  own  food, 
and  doing  all  other  work  without  co-operation,  the  con- 
sumption of  the  food-supply  is  many  times  greater  than 
it  would  be  if  the  same  families  should  so  live  as  to  allow 
the  proper  degree  of  division  of  labor.  Certainly  in  the 
cooking  and  serving  of  food  alone,  at  least  half  [  ?]  of  it  is 
wasted  or  rendered  worthless  by  the  inefficiency  of  the 
labor  employed  in  private  life.  It  is  a  necessary  disad- 
vantage of  private  life  that  the  labor  be  unskilled,  as  no 
person  can  wash,  cook  and  perform  all  the  other  work 
of  a  family  with  as  little  waste  and  as  efficiently  as  the 
labor  could  be  performed  under  conditions  where  each 
person  is  engaged  in  one  occupation  only."  "When  the 
present  mode  of  living  becomes  modified  so  as  to  allow 
a  greater  division  of  labor,  there  will  be  an  important 
economy  of  the  food-supply,  and  a  much  larger  popula- 

195 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

tion    will    be    provided    with    subsistence    without    an 
increase  of  cost."14 

In  1889,  Prof.  Patten's  important  book  on  "The  Con- 
sumption of  Wealth"  appeared.  Consumption,  as  well  as 
production,  of  wealth  now  begins  to  receive  the  attention 
of  the  economist,  because  of  the  theory  that  the  former 
determines  the  latter.  This  naturally  leads  the  author  to 
give  considerable  attention  to  the  part  which  woman 
plays  as  the  chief  "consumer."  (See  p.  18,  supra.)  So, 
while  no  reference  is  made  in  the  work  under  discussion 
to  our  theme,  yet,  in  his  later  writings  and  in  his  lectures, 
Prof.  Patten  has  become  the  chief  exponent  of  the  rela- 
tion of  economic  laws  to  the  home  and  household. 


"Patten,  1885  Edition,  page  57. 

196 


SECTION  VIII 
ELY 

AN  INTRODUCTION  to  Political  Economy"  ap- 
pearing in  1889,  from  the  pen  of  Prof.  Richard 
T.  Ely,  gives  ample  recognition  to  woman's  economic  con- 
tribution. Under  a  paragraph  heading,  "Productive  Ele- 
ments Often  Overlooked,"  he  observes,  "It  is  necessary 
at  this  point  to  call  attention  to  some  important  facts 
which  are  frequently  overlooked.  A  large  part  of  pro- 
duction, even  now,  is  household  production,  as  it  may  be 
called,  and  is  not  designed  for  the  market-place,  which 
indeed  takes  no  note  of  it.  Every  well-regulated  house- 
hold is  an  establishment  where  valuable  things  or  quan- 
tities of  utility  are  produced.  Food  is  prepared  for  use, 
and  prepared  food  is  worth  far  more  than  unprepared, 
as  we  discover  when  we  purchase  it  at  a  boarding  house, 
restaurant  or  hotel.  Often  the  prepared  food  sells  for 
more  than  twice  the  cost  of  the  unprepared  food.  But 
other  utilities  are  produced  in  the  household.  Clothing  is 
prepared  and  repaired,  comfortable  shelter  is  afforded,  and 
strength  of  body  and  mind  of  the  chief  productive  factor, 
the  human  being,  is  nourished.  It  has  been  claimed  that 
the  labor  of  at  least  half  of  the  women  of  a  country  is 
expended  in  producing  material  good  things  for  the  use 
of  the  producers."15  "Now,  it  is  a  fact  that  more  than 
half  of  the  human  race  in  civilized  nations  is  composed 
of  women,  and  if  it  is  admitted  that  women  labor  as  long 


18  See   Edwin   Cannan's   Elementary   Pol.   EC.,   Part   II,   para- 
graph 8. 

197 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

and  as  severely  as  men,  it  follows  that  a  fourth  of  the 
labor  of  men  and  women  combined  is  destined  for  the 
household  and  not  for  the  market.  But  this  is  only  a 
part  of  the  annual  income  of  the  country  of  which  no 
account  is  taken  in  ordinary  money-estimates  of  annual 
income.  Three-fourths  of  the  population  of  the  United 
States  is  rural,  and  in  the  country  a  vast  amount  of 
material  good  things  produced  is  destined  for  the  house- 
hold, and  is  rarely  financially  estimated."  "Houses,  fur- 
niture, books,  .  .  .  and  the  like,  all  annually  produce 
quantities  of  utility.  .  •.,  .  Yet  these  utilities,  when 
produced  by  goods  owned  by  those  who  enjoy  them, 
largely  escape  valuation." 

"While  household  production  is  now  large,  it  un- 
doubtedly has  relatively  diminished  in  importance.  Pro- 
duction of  things  which  are  bought  and  sold  in  the 
market-place,  and  are  consequently  readily  estimated  in 
money,  is  constantly  gaining  in  importance  on  household 
production  of  material  good  things.  .  .  .  Should 
boarding-house  and  hotel  life  totally  displace  private 
housekeeping,  it  would  increase  the  apparent  annual  pro- 
duction of  wealth."16 


Ely,  1889,  pages  22-24. 

198 


SECTION  IX 
MARSHALL 

T>ROF.  ALFRED  MARSHALL,  of  Cambridge,  Eng- 
•*•  land,  has  given  us  in  his  "Principles  of  Economics" 
(1890),  one  of  the  fullest  treatments  of  economics.  Dis- 
cussing Adam  Smith's  idea  of  unproductive  labor,  he 
says :  "Many  writers,  even  of  recent  times,  have  adhered 
to  Adam  Smith's  plan  of  classing  domestic  servants 
as  unproductive.  There  is,  doubtless,  in  many  large 
houses  a  superabundance  of  servants,  some  of  whose 
energies  might  with  advantage  to  the  community  be 
transferred  to  some  other  direction ;  but  the  same  is  true 
of  the  greater  part  of  those  who  earn  their  livelihood  by 
distilling  whiskey ;  and  yet  no  economist  has  proposed 
to  call  them  unproductive.  There  is  no  distinction  in 
character  between  the  work  of  the  baker,  who  provides 
bread  for  a  family  and  that  of  a  cook  who  boils  potatoes. 
If  the  baker  should  be  a  confectioner,  or  fancy  baker, 
it  is  probable  that  he  spends  at  least  as  much  of  his  time 
as  the  domestic  cook  does,  on  labour  that  is  unproductive 
in  the  popular  sense  of  providing  transitory  and  un- 
necessary enjoyments."17  "Among  the  means  of  produc- 
tion are  included  the  necessaries  of  labour,  but  not  ephem- 
eral luxuries,  and  the  maker  of  ices  is  thus  classed  as 
unproductive  whether  he  is  working  for  a  pastry-cook, 
or  as  a  private  servant  in  a  country  house.  But  a  brick- 
layer engaged  in  building  a  theatre  is  classed  as  produc- 


17  Marshall,    1898  Edition,  pages    134-5;    1907   Edition,   Vol.   I, 
pages  65-6. 

199 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

tive.  No  doubt  the  division  between  permanent  and 
ephemeral  sources  of  enjoyment  is  vague  and  unsub- 
stantial. But  this  difficulty  exists  in  the  nature  of  things 
and  cannot  be  completely  evaded  by  any  device  of 
words."18 

Under  a  consideration  of  "Social  Income,"  Prof. 
Marshall  observes  that  "The  work  of  domestic  servants 
is  always  classed  as  'labour'  in  the  technical  sense;  and 
since  it  can  be  assessed  en  bloc  at  the  value  of  their  wages 
without  being  enumerated  in  detail,  its  inclusion  raises 
no  statistical  difficulty.  There  is,  however,  some  incon- 
sistency in  omitting  that  heavy  domestic  work,  which  is 
done  by  women  and  other  members  of  the  household, 
where  no  servants  are  kept."19  As  Prof.  Marshall  sug- 
gests, it  may  well  be  that  the  main  reason  why  statis- 
ticians have  included  in  national  income  the  wages  of 
servants  and  not  that  of  housewives  has  been  due  to  the 
difficulty  of  estimating  the  value  of  the  latter. 


"Those  who  adopt  the  views  expressed  in  the  present  work 
will  avoid  this  difficulty. 
19  Marshall,  Sixth  Edition,  1910,  page  79. 

200 


SECTION  X 
SMART 

INTERESTING  observations  on  servants  and  services 
•••  appear  in  "Studies  in  Economics,"  by  William  Smart 
(1895).  "I  am  afraid,"  he  says,  "it  is  not  always  appre- 
ciated that,  in  the  making  of  the  servant,  we  really  sink 
labour  and  capital  in  the  making  of  a  special  kind  of 
commodity."  Then  he  compares  a  singer  and  an  artisan. 
When  the  "sink  of  money"  in  feeding  and  training  them 
is  past,  what  is  the  difference  between  the  two?  "The 
artisan  disgorges,  as  it  were,  all  the  wealth  sunk  in  his 
apprenticeship;  gives  it  back  gradually  to  the  world — 
not  without  interest — in  the  shape  of  goods  from  his 
hammer  and  chisel.  The  singer  appears  on  a  platform; 
exerts  his  vocal  chords;  we  pay  five  shillings;  and  the 
world  does  not  put  itself  down  as  any  richer." 

"Thus,  year  after  year,  wealth  is  sunk  in  making  what 
we  may  call  'human  commodities'  .  .  .  painters, 
players,  musicians,  teachers,  clergymen,  domestics.  We 
recognize  the  value  of  these  commodities;  but  all  the 
same  they  do  not  appear  in  any  balance  sheet  to  our 
credit."  .  .  .  "Here,  then,  is  perhaps  the  greatest 
difficulty  in  estimating  the  sum  of  wealth;  that  we  are 
converting  the  raw  material  of  the  world,  not  only  into 
commodities  which  we  consume,  but  into  commodities 
(teachers,  domestics,  doctors,  clergymen,  etc.)  which 
consume  !"20 


Smart,  pages  240-243. 

201 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

The  fallacy  of  considering  national  wealth  as  a  sum  of 
things  made,  without  including  services,  is  here  well  indi- 
cated. The  idea  of  considering  persons  as  commodities 
or  capital  goods  is  generally  rejected  by  contemporary 
writers  on  economics.21 

Under  a  section  heading,  "Expenditure  and  Consump- 
tion," Prof.  Smart  says  that,  "To  spend  income  is  not 
to  consume  wealth" ;  only  that  money  which  is  spent  in 
the  purchase  of  consumption  goods  is  "pure  consump- 
tion." "While  a  Vanderbilt  may  spend  his  income,  it 
is  beyond  anything  but  an  immense  conflagration  to 
consume  it."22 

Some  interesting  remarks,  based  upon  his  personal 
expenditures,  are  given  in  a  section  on  "The  Categories 
of  Consumption."  "The  categories  under  which  most 
forms  of  private  consumption  may  be  grouped  are:  1. 
Food  and  drink.  2.  Dress,  including  ornament.  3. 
Shelter,  including  furnishings  and  equipment  of  house. 
4.  Transport,  including  travel  and  communication  gen- 
erally. 5.  Education,  including  literature  and  art.  6. 
Recreation."  Under  the  head  of  Food  and  Drink,  Prof. 
Smart  makes  the  point  that  "there  is  scarcely  any  form 
of  consumption  where  excess"  (over-eating  or  purchase 
of  expensive  foods,  as  champagne),  "is  so  plainly  rob- 
bery of  a  poor  society."  Dress  is  not  entirely  selfish 
consumption  as  is  food,  since  it  benefits  others,  first,  in 
that  expensive  clothes  when  partly  worn  are  passed  on 
for  the  poor  to  use,  and  then  "dress  has  an  aesthetic 
mission  as  well  as  a  utilitarian.  Trie  consumer  of  clothes 
has  one  side  to  the  wearer,  but  another  to  the  spectator. 
.  .  .  It  is  obviously  the  opinion  of  one  of  the  sexes 

21  Seager,  "Principles  of  Economics,"  page  149. 
32  Smart,  pages  269-272. 

202 


SMART 

that  a  beautiful  picture  deserves  a  good  frame.  If  femi- 
nine dress  were  not  meant  to  show  as  much  as  to  hide, 
there  would  be  no  sale  for  silk  stockings."  Shelter  is  still 
less  selfish  consumption,  since  "houses  are  built  for  the 
abode  of  successive  generations,"  and  they  are  also  en- 
joyed by  one's  friends.23 

In  a  section  entitled  "The  Service,"  the  author  returns 
to  the  subject  discussed  above.  "The  service  is  an  eco- 
nomic 'good'  just  as  the  commodity  is.  ...  In  pay- 
ing for  a  dinner  one  pays  for  the  food  and  one  pays  for 
the  waiting  on  the  same  principle  of  value."  "The 
gardener,  laundress,  tablemaid,  sewing-maid  have  their 
counterparts  in  the  park-keeper,  public  laundry  girl, 
waiter  and  warehouse  girl." 

"Consumption  of  food — what  we  might  call  'feeding' — 
is  a  joint  consumption  of  material  commodity  and  of 
services  inhering  in  the  cook  and  waiter  who  minister  it. 
So  it  is  with  domestic  servants  generally;  the  consump- 
tion of  'shelter/  for  instance,  is  a  consumption  not  only 
of  stone  walls  and  furnishings,  but  of  the  staff  who 
maintain  the  house;  the  services  of  coachmen,  equally 
with  those  of  railway  servants,  are  inseparable,  in  the 
consideration  of  'transport,'  from  their  corresponding 
plant." 


'M  Smart,  pages  276-284. 

203 


SECTION  XI 
DEVINE 

IN  his  "Economics"  (1894),  Dr.  Edward  T.  Devine 
(Columbia),  makes  only  one  reference  to  the  work 
of  woman  in  the  home,  but  that  point  is  an  exceedingly 
important  one.  He  says:  "The  economic  man,  then,  is 
a  human  being.  The  term  is  generic,  including  both 
men  and  women ;  not  merely  those  who  are  usually  called 
breadwinners,  but  also  the  bread  preparers."2*  After 
thus  emphasizing  that  the  housewife  is  co-equal  with 
man  as  a  producer,  Dr.  Devine  dismisses  this  whole  field 
of  economic  activity.  That  this  was,  in  all  probability, 
not  done  through  a  lack  of  appreciation  of  the  importance 
of  woman's  work,  but  rather  because  household  pro- 
duction was  not  considered  as  being  included  in  the  gen- 
eral field  of  a  text-book  on  economics,  is  evidenced  by 
the  fact  that  Dr.  Devine  has  made  the  clearest  and  fullest 
statement  on  this  subject  which  has  yet  appeared  from 
the  pen  of  any  economist.25 


**  Devine,  1894  Edition,  page  2. 
28  Supra,  page  18. 

204 


SECTION  XII 
SMART 

1POUR  years  after  the  appearance  of  his  "Studies  in 
•*•  Economics,"  Prof.  Smart  published,  "The  Distri- 
bution of  Income"  (1899).  Here  we  find  the  first  refer- 
ence to  our  topic  in  a  marginal  heading,  "Woman's 
Work  in  the  Household,"  and  in  an  index,  "Women  in 
the  House."  A  chapter  sub-heading,  "Income  Which 
Escapes  Both  Notice  and  Assessment,"26  reminds  us  of 
Prof.  Ely's  paragraph  on  "Productive  Elements  Often 
Overlooked."27  "This,"  he  says,  "may  be  put  in  seven 
categories:  (1)  Unpaid  services,  particularly  those  of 
women,  etc."  Under  the  paragraph  heading  "Unpaid 
Services,"  we  find:  "It  has  been  noticed  that  society 
has  been  divided  into  those  who  have  two  instruments  of 
production  and  those  who  have  only  one.  If  the  one  is 
sufficient  to  yield  the  maintenance  demanded,  the  other 
may  be  set  free  to  work  for  love.  Thus  we  have  the 
services  of  members  of  Parliament,  etc."  "To  these  must 
be  added  the  greatest  unpaid  service  of  all — that  of 
women  in  the  household.  What  this  income  really 
amounts  to  may  be  guessed  if  we  imagine  what  we 
should  have  to  pay  to  servants  for  doing  work  now  done 
by  wives,  sisters  and  daughters,  and  how  entirely  impos- 
sible it  would  be  to  get  similar  work  done  for  money. 
If  such  women  went  to  the  factory  or  into  professional 


26  A  title  which  raises  the  interesting  query,  "Should  a  house- 
wife pay  an  income  tax,  levied  on  the  valuation  of  her  productive 
activities  ?" 

27  See  page  197,  supra. 

205 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

life,  we  should  have  to  withdraw  probably  a  much 
greater  number  from  the  factory  or  professions  to  take 
their  place,  and  should  lose  something  with  it  all.  For 
the  rest,  it  is  easy  enough  to  say  with  Prof.  Marshall: 
'A  woman  who  makes  her  own  clothes,  or  a  man  who 
digs  his  own  garden  or  repairs  his  own  house,  is  earning 
income  just  as  would  the  dressmaker,  gardener  or  car- 
penter, who  might  be  hired  to  do  the  work.' '  ( Mar- 
shall, Prin.  of  EC.,  4th  Ed.,  p.  149). 28  Prof.  Smart  con- 
siders the  services  of  a  housewife  as  "unpaid"  because 
they  are  paid  in  "kind"  instead  of  in  cash.  Again,  the 
author  says:  "Such  work  as  that  of  the  majority  of 
women  is  not  paid  for  at  all  in  money,  although  it  is 
necessary  for  what  we  call  our  'life'  as  the  work  that  is 
paid  for."29 


38  Smart,  1899  Edition,  page  70. 
19  Ibid.,  page  151. 

206 


SECTION  XIII 
VEBLEN 

THE  THEORY  OF  BUSINESS  ENTERPRISE" 
(1904),  by  Prof.  Thorstein  Veblen  (Chicago), 
notes  that,  "The  present  is  the  age  of  business  enter- 
prise." But,  "there  are  many  items  of  great  volume  and 
consequence  that  do  not  fall  within  the  immediate  scope 
of  these  business  principles.  The  housewife's  work,  e.  g., 
as  well  as  some  appreciable  portion  of  the  work  on  farms 
and  in  some  handicrafts,  can  scarcely  be  classed  as  busi- 
ness enterprise."30 


80  Veblen,  1904  Edition,  page  2. 

207 


SECTION  XIV 
SELIGMAN 

A  N  excellent  answer  to  Adam  Smith's  division  of 
-**  *•  labor  into  productive  and  unproductive,  is  given  in 
Prof.  Edwin  R.  A.  Seligman's  "Principles  of  Economics" 
(1905).  "The  older  economists  maintained  that  the 
labor  of  servants,  actors  and  the  professional  classes  in 
general  was  unproductive,  because  not  incorporated  in 
visible  objects."  "To  those  who  understand  that  human 
wants  are  satisfied  by  utilities,  irrespective  of  the  source 
whence  they  flow,  it  is  clear  that  all  labor  which  en- 
genders such  utilities  is  productive.  Labor  is  unpro- 
ductive only  when  its  efforts  are  wasted.  The  trader, 
the  lawyer,  the  doctor,  the  artist,  are  no  less  productive 
than  the  workman,  the  farmer  or  the  manufacturer,  pro- 
vided they  accomplish  something  that  society  wants. 
The  test  is  the  creation  of  new  utilities  or  values."31 
Here  is  where  the  mention  of  the  activities  of  the  house- 
wife might  reasonably  be  expected  and  its  omission  indi- 
cates the  need  of  continual  emphasis  upon  the  economic 
value  of  household  work  until  the  productive  labors  of 
one-half  of  the  world's  workers  may  receive  due  con- 
sideration. 


81  Seligman,  1909  Edition,  pages  277-8. 

208 


SECTION  XV 
FISHER 

I"  N  very  brief  form  we  find  two  references  to  our  topic 
•*•  in  Prof.  Irving  A.  Fisher's  "Elementary  Principles  of 
Economics"  (1911).  In  the  chapter  on  "Income,"  he 
says :  "The  income  from  any  particular  article  of  wealth 
has  been  defined  as  the  flow  of  benefits  from  that  article, 
.  .  .  whether  these  benefits  happen  to  be  in  the  form 
of  money  payments  or  not."  "A  wife  does  housework; 
her  work  is  an  item  of  the  family's  income.  The  warmth 
and  shelter  that  a  house  provides  for  its  occupants  con- 
stitute the  income  furnished  by  the  house." 


209 


SECTION  XVI 
PATTEN 

HAVING  covered  the  principal  publications  of  the 
prominent  economists,32  a  brief  account  of  certain 
articles  by  Prof.  Patten  cannot  be  overlooked. 

In  an  article  in  the  "Independent"  (Dec.  1,  1904) 
entitled,  "Young  Wives  in  Industry,"  Prof.  Patten  argues 
that  one  way  of  solving  the  present  problem  of  celibacy, 
due  to  the  inability  of  two  people  to  live  decently  on  the 
wages  of  one  unskilled  worker  ($10  a  week),  is  for  the 
woman  to  continue  in  industry  until  her  husband's  in- 
come reaches  $20  a  week.  He  says :  "The  master  key 
to  family  unity  is  not  found  in  the  division  of  function 
into  supporting  husband  and  supported  wife ;  or  its  unity 
in  the  near  future  as  likely  to  be  endangered  by  preserv- 
ing, until  the  struggling  family  is  on  its  feet,  the  inde- 
pendent industrial  status  of  the  pair  before  marriage,  as 
it  is  by  the  sudden  removal  of  one  person  into  a  position 
of  semi-unoccupied  dependence  upon  another's  grinding 
wages."  "The  city  home  of  the  immediate  future  will 
be  unique  in  that  it  will  be  built  by  two  who  are  educated, 
side  by  side,  in  the  public  school,  whose  industrial 
careers  are  side  by  side  in  the  factory,  whose  plans  of 
life,  formed  by  the  same  city  outlook,  have  resulted  in 
like  powers  and  parallel  interests." 

"The  point  at  which  withdrawal  from  outside  industry 
to  the  extension  of  activity  within  the  home  is  good 


82  Appendix  D. 

210 


PATTEN 

economy  is  not  reached  until  the  husband's  wage  makes 
possible  options,  saving,  investment  and  the  rewards  of 
capital  wherein  the  future  has  to  be  balanced  with  the 
present  and  its  returns.  When  the  house  can  be  con- 
ducted on  a  scale  which  will  utilize  the  faculties  of  one 
mind,  with  room  for  growth  besides,  then  the  natural 
homemaker  is  more  valuable  there  than  in  industry.  At 
the  present  cost  of  living  the  husband  must  earn  at 
least  $20  a  week  before  that  point  is  reached." 

Prof.  Patten  again  appears  in  the  "Independent"  in 
September,  1906,  with  an  article  on  "Some  New  Adjust- 
ments for  Women,"  a  further  discussion  of  married 
women  working  at  "gainful  occupations."  Woman,  he 
says,  cherishes  the  conviction  that  her  spiritual  values 
to  her  husband  and  children  lie  in  service-altruism,  that 
is,  in  direct  personal  work  with  her  own  hands  for  them 
and  the  greater  the  amount  of  work  the  larger  the  spirit- 
ual service.  Her  tasks  as  homemaker  are  considered 
essential  means  for  the  exercise  of  her  influence  for 
good  over  husband  and  child.  But,  he  concludes,  income- 
altruism  will  exceed  service-altruism  only  if  income 
values  exceed  sacrifice  utility;  that  is,  if  the  sacrifice 
which  the  woman  makes  in  doing  household  work  does 
not  bring  direct  benefits  to  the  family  larger  than  would 
accrue  if  she  worked  outside  of  the  home  and  then 
applied  the  income  received  to  the  raising  of  the  family 
standard  of  living,  then  she  should  go  out  to  work. 

Finally,  "the  daughter  of  a  man  who  earns  $10  a  week 
may  help  him  with  the  commodity  he  needs  most — 
money;  she  is,  in  fact,  expected  to  help  him,  and  is 
thought  a  trifler  if  she  shirks ;  but  the  bride  of  a  man  who 
earns  $10  must  cease  to  forward  him  in  the  same  way."33 


33  See  page  120,  supra. 

211 


SECTION  XVII 
CONCLUSION 

FROM  the  foregoing  study  of  the  economists  and 
household  work,  we  have  ascertained  that  many  of 
them  recognize  these  activities  as  productive,  yet  none 
give  to  them  the  same  consideration  that  they  do  to  the 
productive  labor  of  men,  or  that  of  women  in  factories 
or  business  offices.34  What  we  are  interested  in  is  the  sum 
total  of  Household  and  of  National  Income.  In  each  of 
these  we  must  certainly  include  the  work  of  both  men 
and  women  workers,  no  matter  where  their  work  is  done. 
And  even  though  the  labors  of  the  housewives  of  our 
land  do  not  produce  economic  values  equivalent  with 
those  of  the  so-called  industrial  workers,  female  or  male, 
yet  it  is  a  pregnant  query  whether  the  sum  total  of  hap- 
piness of  the  American  family  is  not  as  much  dependent 
upon  the  amount  and  value  of  the  work  of  housewives 
as  of  husbands. 


Appendix  D. 

212 


APPENDIX  A 


APPENDIX  A 


HOUSEHOLD  SCHEDULE 

1.  Residence  of  family,  address? 

2.  Birthplace  of  housekeeper? 
Birthplace  of  husband? 

Brought  up  in  city,  town,  village,  suburbs  or  country? 
Ditto,  husband? 

3.  Composition  of  household? 


MEMBERS 

Ap- 
prox- 
imate 
A?e 

Sex 

Occupation 

Health  11 

Household 
Work     § 
Hours  Daily 

Week 
Days 

Sun- 
days 

Housekeeper 

Husband 

* 

Oldest  child 

t 

Boarders,  lodgers 

Servants  || 

Hired  Help** 

*  Other  relatives  in  order  of  relationship,  f  Other  children  in 
order  of  age.  ||  All  working  regularly  each  day  whether  residing 
with  family  or  sleeping  out.  fl  Measured  by  physical  ability  to  do 
household  work  (except  children  under  fourteen),  eight  hours 
a  day,  "good,"  "fair"  or  "poor" ;  average  for  past  year.  §  Includ- 
ing care  of  children.  **  Working  regularly  by  day  or  hour,  but 
not  as  servant  by  the  week. 

215 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

4.  Are   you   living  in   an   apartment,   a   house   or   a 
hotel?  How  long  have  you  lived  in  present 
dwelling?                Form  [house,  apartments  or  hotel]  of 
previous  residence? 

Number  of  rooms  therein? 

Do  you  prefer  your  present  location  to  that  in  which 
you  were  reared  ?  If  so,  why ;  if  not,  why  not  ? 

If  you  had  a  choice  would  you  prefer  to  change  to 
another  form  of  habitation?  If  so,  why? 

Mention  what  you  consider  the  advantages  of  your 
present  residence  over  other  forms  ? 

Its  disadvantages? 

5.  Is  dwelling  rented  or  owned? 

If  rented,  does  rental  include  hot  water? 

Heat  ?  Janitor  service  ?  Care  of  rooms  ? 

6.  How  is  dwelling  heated? 
Who  takes  care  of  heating? 

7.  Give  number  of  rooms  and  halls  in  your  house  or 
apartment. 

8.  How  many  steps  from  stove  to  sink? 

From  stove  to  work  table  in  kitchen?  From 

stove  to  dining  room  table? 

9.  Is   there  any   place   especially   provided    for   chil- 
dren to  play  in  your  house  or  apartment? 

On  roof?  In  yard  [state  approximate  size]  ? 

Do  your  children  play  in  the  street?  If  so,  alone 

or  always  in  the  care  of  someone  ? 

10.  How  are  floors  of  rooms  and  halls  covered? 
Summer?  ;  V     Winter? 

How  many  have  carpets? 
How  many  have  matting? 

216 


APPENDIX  A 

How  many  have  rugs? 

If  carpets  and  matting  are  used  state  how  frequently 

they  are  taken  up  and  cleaned,  how   cleaned  and  by 

whom? 

Same  of  rugs   (do  not  include  here  regular  daily  or 
weekly  cleaning). 
How  many  rugs? 

Are  carpets  and  rugs  ever  cleaned  by  machinery  out- 
side of  home? 

Do  you  own  a  vacuum  cleaner? 

If  you  do  not  own  a  vacuum  cleaner  do  you  rent  one? 
How  often?  Who  uses  it? 

11.  Do  you  cook  with  wood,  coal,  gas,   oil,  alcohol 
or  electricity? 

If  you  use  coal  or  wood  who  carries  fuel  from  cellar 
to  kitchen  stove? 

For  lighting  do  you  use  candles,  oil,  gas  or  electric- 
ity? 

If  you  had  a  choice  would  you  change  your  present 
heating  or  lighting  methods,  and  why? 

12.  Do   you   or   any   of   your   regular   household   do 
any  papering,  painting,   whitewashing,  make  carpentry 
repairs  or  any  other  work  in  house  not  usually  classed 
as  household  work?  If  so,  how  much  time 
spent  in  each  such  line  of  work  in  past  year? 

13.  Is  any  work  done  in  the  home  other  than  house- 
hold work  and  that  included  in  answer  to  query  12? 

If  so,  give  details  including  nature  of  such  work, 
amount  of  time  spent  at  it  in  average  week,  how  much 
room  is  required  in  performing  such  work,  etc. 

14.  How    many    labor-saving    devices    do    you    now 
make  regular  use  of  in  your  housework?      Place  "yes" 

217 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

or   "no"  after  each  article  mentioned  below   and   add 
others. 

In  each  case  state  the  reason  why  you  do  not  use  the 
article  mentioned :    because  you  think  it  will  not  work ; 
because  of  expense  in  purchasing  article;  because  you 
do  not  wish  to  be  bothered  with  experimenting  with 
something  new;  because  of  ignorance  or  prejudice  of 
your  assistants;  or  any  other  reason? 
Vacuum  cleaner  (hand,  electric)  ? 
Carpet  sweeper? 
Sewing  machine? 

Washing  machine  (hand  or  power)  ? 
Electric  or  gas  iron? 

Power  attachment  (electric,  water)  for  sewing  machine, 
washing  machine,  wringer,  mangle? 
Fireless  cooker? 
Dish  washer? 
Bread  mixer? 


218 


APPENDIX  A 

15.  In  the  following  table  state  the  number  of  hours'  work 
done  by  each  member  of  the  household  in  each  line  of  house- 
hold work  during  an  average  week ;  skill  of  each  one  in  each 
line  of  work  (1,  excellent;  2,  good;  3,  fair;  4,  poor;  5,  very 
poor)  ;  designate  how  much  each  one  likes  to  do  each  line  of 
work  (1,  keen  enjoyment;  2,  pleasure;  3,  indifference;  4,  dislike; 
5,  strong  dislike). 


Members  of  household  doing 
household  work 


FOOD 

Purchasing. 

Cooking  (including  preparing). 
Serving      (including      clearing 

away). 
Washing     dishes,     pots,     pans, 

etc. 

CLOTHING 
Purchasing.! 
Making.f 
Repairing.! 
Washing.  || 
Ironing.!) 
Care    of     (cleaning,    pressing, 

sorting,  putting  away). 

HOUSE 

Cleaning   (daily  routine). 
Cleaning    (weekly  routine). 
Care  of,  other  than  cleaning. 
(Chamberwork,       setting       to 
rights,  etc.). 

CHILDREN 
Care  of  person, 
(dressing,  bathing,  etc.). 
Oversight  of.* 
Teaching   and   entertaining. 

MANAGEMENT 

(Accounts,  planning,  work, 
etc.) 


HOURS 
OF  WORK 


II 
53 


SKILL 


PLEASURE 


*Oversight  of  children  while  also  doing  other  things,  as 
eating  meals,  shopping  when  out  walking  with  them,  etc.,  should 
count  in  this  column  just  what  additional  time  is  required  above 
that  necessary  if  there  were  no  children,  t  Do  not  include 
servants.  ||  Is  servants'  wash  included? 


219 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

16.  If  physical  ability  and  skill  of  housekeeper  and 
present  assistants  were  first  class,  could  all  your  house- 
hold work  be  done,  as  you  would  like  to  see  it  done, 
during  present  working  hours? 

Could  it  be  done  if  housekeeper  and  present  assistants 
worked  on  an  eight-hour  day  basis? 

17.  Would  you  prefer  to  have  assistants  come  in  by 
the  day  or  hour  [sleep  out],  or  have  them  live  in  your 
house  [or  apartment]  ? 

Why? 

(State  in  brackets,  after  each  name  below,  what  wages 
you  would  be  willing  to  pay  for  service  if  you  could  get 
assistants  whose  health  and  skill  were  rated  first  class.) 

18.  What  wages  do  you  pay  for  cook  ?  (  ) 
Waitress?  (  ) 
Chambermaid  ?  (  ) 
Seamstress  ?  (  ) 
Laundress  ?  (  ) 
Child's  Nurse?  (  ) 
General  houseworker?  (  ) 

19.  Give  an  average  day's  menu  and  mention  princi- 
pal variations  from  this  on  other  days  of  the  week). 

20.  Do  you  make  bread?  (In  each  case  state 
whether     all,     or     what     proportion     of     that     used.) 
Cake?             Rolls?             Pie?  Butter?  Do 
you  put  up  fruits  and  vegetables?                If  so,  specify 
amount  annually  of  jams,  jellies,  preserves,  canned  fruits 
and  vegetables,  grape- juice,  etc. 

21.  When  food  is  served  is  it  placed  upon  the  table 
and  passed  around  by  those  at  the  table  or  is  it  passed 
by  a  waitress? 

Which  method  do  you  prefer,  and  why? 

220 


APPENDIX  A 

22.  About  how  much  time  is  lost  each  week  by  those 
preparing  and  serving  meals  through  the  irregularity  of 
any  members  of  the  household  in  being  late  at  meals? 

23.  Do   all   the   present   members   of   the   household 
take  all  their  meals  at  home  as  a  rule ;  if  not,  state  which 
ones  regularly  get  meals  outside,  and  how  many  meals 
weekly  ? 

24.  How  much  company  do  you  entertain  at  meals 
on  the  average  each  week? 

Is  extra  assistance  usually  secured  on  such  occasions? 
If  so,  how  much? 

26.  What  is  average  weekly  cost  of  washing  and  iron- 
ing, clothing  done  at  laundry  ? 

By  outside  laundress?  By  laundress  coming  in  by 

the  day? 

27.  Annual  Budget — Give  your  estimate  of  amount 
spent  annually  by  total  household  group  under  each  of 
the  following  headings.     (State  after  each  figure  whether 
it  is  taken  from  actual  accounts  kept,  from  bills,  or  is  a 
guess.) 

Food? 

Clothing?  (Exclude  servants) 

Rental  (or  equivalent)  ? 

Heat  and  light? 

Furniture  and  furnishings? 

Wages  ? 

28.  Does   the  housekeeper  receive   a   stipulated   sum 
weekly,  monthly  or  yearly  for  household  expenses  or  is 
money  paid  her  as  needed? 

Ditto  for  housekeeper's  personal  expenses? 
Who  usually  pays  the  monthly  bills? 

221 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 


25.  In  the  subjoined  table  state  how  many  of  each  article  are 
bought  or  made  annually  (where  an  article,  as  a  coat,  is  bought 
every  second  or  third  year,  count  it  one-half  or  one-third,  etc.). 
"Special  workers"  mean  those  who  are  hired  to  come  into  the 
house  for  a  day  or  two  for  the  special  purpose  of  making, 
repairing  or  laundering  clothing.  "Regular  workers"  are  the 
members  of  the  household  including  assistants  paid  by  the  week 
or  month.  Do  not  include  servants,  boarders  or  lodgers  (unless 
relatives  or  sufficiently  intimate  to  be  considered  as  part  of 
family).  State  how  many  of  the  persons  listed  under  query  3 
are  included  in  answers  to  this  query. 


NEW  CLOTHING   [annual]. 

b« 

sl 

00 

ll 

H 

*^  c 

o  o 

o  o 

T3 
re 

OK 

ffi£ 

K£ 

^j 

°  V 

4.1 

rt  u 

.s  >. 

•3% 

|| 

o  v 
«« 

51 

«  2f 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No. 

Hats,  caps  (men) 

Hats,  Bonnets  (women) 

Overcoats,  cloaks 

Suits  (men) 

Suits   (women) 

0 

Dresses 

Shirts    (men) 

Shirtwaists 

Petticoats 

Skirts 

Vests  (men) 

Collars  and  cuffs    (pairs) 

Ties 

Handkerchiefs 

Night  robes 

Underwear  (separate) 

Underwear  (union  suits) 

Socks,  stockings  (pairs) 

Shoes 

Gloves,  mittens 

Sweaters 

Other  garments 

Table  linen 

Bed  linen 

Towels 

222 


APPENDIX  A 

29.  If  you  had  a  choice  would  you  prefer  taking  all 
(or  some)  of  your  meals  at  home  or  in  a  general  dining- 
room,  and  why? 

Is  your  answer  principally  affected  by  financial  consid- 
erations? 

What  is  your  husband's  choice? 

30.  Would  the  requirement  to  be  at  the  table  within 
a  specified  hour  be  a  serious  factor  in  your  estimate  of 
the  advantages   and   disadvantages   of   using  a   general 
dining-room  ? 

31.  If  food  could  be  served  in  your  own  dining-room 
from  a  central  kitchen  as  cheaply  as  you  can  prepare  it 
yourself  would  you  prefer  such  an  arrangement  to  your 
present  method? 

32.  Do  you  feel  that  the  possibility  of  having  food 
served  in  such  manner  as  best  pleases  your  individual 
taste  by  home  cooking  more  than  compensates  for  any 
possible   advantage   in   obtaining   more   skillful   cooking 
or    a    possible    saving    in    expense    through    any    other 
method  of  serving  meals? 

How  does  your  husband  feel  about  this? 

33.  Do   you    consider   that    the    making   of    cooking, 
sewing,   washing,   house-cleaning,    etc.,   distinct   profes- 
sions handled  by  separate  workers    [as  other  lines  of 
work  formerly  done  in  the  home  are  now  specialized] 
would  diminish  the  value  and  happiness  of  home  life? 

34.  If  you  had  a  choice  would  you  prefer  household 
work  to  any  other  profession,  and  why? 

If  not,  what  lines  of  work  would  you  prefer?     [Name 
two  in  order  of  preference.] 

223 


THE   HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

Have  you  done  or  are  you  doing  any  work  for  which 
you  received  or  are  receiving  a  salary;  or  have  you 
received  definite  offers  to  work  for  a  specified  salary? 
State  nature  of  work  and  salary? 

35.  If  you  were  to  join  a  group  of  families  living  on 
a   plan  of   co-operative   housekeeping  or   some   similar 
arrangement,  which  line  of  household  work  would  you 
choose  to  specialize  in?  [See  list  under  Query  15] 

36.  Do  you   feel  that  you  get  a  satisfaction  out  of 
household  work  because  you  are  doing  it  for  your  family 
which  you  would  not  feel  if  you  were  doing  the  same 
work  professionally  for  a  salary? 

What  do  you  consider  the  value  in  dollars,  per  month, 
of  your  present  work  as  housekeeper? 

37.  Have  you  ever  taken  any  courses  of  training  in 
housework    in    any    school,    or    private    paid    lessons? 
If  so,  when,  where  and  how  long? 

38.  Do   you   subscribe    for   and    read   regularly   any 
household  magazines?     (Put  "subscribe"  opposite  those 
taken  and  regularly  read;  write  "read"  opposite  those 
not  subscribed  for  but  read  regularly.) 

The  Journal  of  Home  Economics.     Monthly.     $2.00. 

(Published  by  American  Home  Economics  Associa- 
tion.    Roland  Park  Branch,  Baltimore,  Md.) 

Good  Housekeeping  Magazine.     $1.25.     381   Fourth 
Avenue,  New  York. 

American  Motherhood.    $1.00. 

Give  names  of  books  on  household  topics  which  you 
have  read? 

224 


APPENDIX  A 


39.  Are  you  a  member  of  any  club  or  association 
which  devotes  at  least  part  of  its  time  to  household 
affairs?    If  so,  what  organization? 

40.  Give  names  of  other  housekeepers  who  you  think 
would  be  interested  in  filling  out  a  schedule. 

(Your  name  will  not  be  mentioned) 

41.  Weekly  Schedule — Give  the  daily  routine  for  each 
day  of  an  average  week  showing  the  amount  of  time 
which  each  member  of  the  household  spends  in  house- 
hold work  (including  care  of  children).    A  sample  daily 
schedule  is  presented  here  to  show  the  form  desired : 

HOUSEKEEPER'S  SCHEDULE 
Wednesday,  January  15,  1915 


A.  M.  A.  M. 

7.00  Personal  7.30 

7.30  Cooking  7.45 

7.45  Serving  8.00 

8.00  Personal  8.30 

8.30  Care  of  children  8.45 

8.45  Clearing  table  9.00 

9.00  Washing  dishes  9.30 

9.30  Clearing  up  kitchen    9.45 

9.45  Care  of  house  10.15 

10.15  Weekly  cleaning  11.15 

11.15  Purchasing  food  11.45 

11.45  Preparing  and  P.M. 

P.  M.  cooking  food  12.30 

12.30  Personal  1.00 

1.00  Clearing  table  1.20 


P.  M.  P.  M. 

1.20  Washing  dishes  2.00 

2.00  Cleaning  up  kitchen  2.20 

2.20  Repairing  clothing  3.00 

3.00  Personal  3.45 
3.45  Entertaining  children  4.30 
4.30  Purchase  of  clothing  5.00 

5.00  Care  of  children  5.25 

5.25  Cooking  6.00 

6.00  Serving  6.20 

6.20  Personal  6.55 

6.55  Clearing  table  7.15 

7.15  Washing  dishes  7.50 

7.50  Teaching  children  8.40 

8.40  Accounts  9.20 

9.20  Personal  10.30 


Use  word  "personal"  for  all  time  spent  otherwise  than 
in  doing  household  work  (eating,  dressing,  taking  a  nap, 
talking,  visiting,  reading,  etc.).  In  general,  make  use  of 
terms  used  in  sample  schedule  and  in  table  under  Query 

15.  When  doing  two  kinds  of  work  in  frequent  alterna- 
tion, as  dressing  the  children  while  cooking  breakfast, 
divide  time  as  though  you  had  continuously  done  first 

225 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

one  thing  and  then  the  other  to  save  making  many  entries 
covering  a  few  minutes  each. 

Use  a  separate  sheet  of  paper  for  each  person  doing 
household  work  during  week  scheduled;  state  which 
member  of  household  group  is  being  listed,  and  state 
day  of  week. 

Return  schedule,  filled  out,  to  John  B.  Leeds,  Temple 
University,  Philadelphia. 


226 


APPENDIX  B 


APPENDIX  B 

LETTER  TO  ACCOMPANY  SCHEDULE 
DEAR  MADAM  : 

With  this  letter  a  schedule  is  enclosed  which  you  are 
requested  to  fill  out  and  return  as  soon  as  practicable. 
If  your  experience  is  like  that  of  others,  you  will  find 
that  this  work  will  be  of  value  to  yourself  as  well  as  an 
aid  to  scientific  inquiry. 

It  is  said  that  whereas  a  man's  work  is  from  sun  to 
sun,  a  woman's  work  is  never  done,  yet  no  attempt  has 
been  made  heretofore  to  gather  data  in  any  scientific 
manner  as  to  just  how  much  work  really  is  done  in  the 
household,  nor  have  the  economists  attempted  to  deter- 
mine the  value  of  such  work. 

Does  the  average  housewife  really  earn  her  own  living, 
or  is  she  "dependent"  upon  her  husband  for  "support"? 
Are  her  long  hours  of  labor  due  to  lack  of  skill,  of  physi- 
cal efficiency,  of  systematic  organization  of  work,  or  is 
it  humanly  impossible  for  one  woman  to  do  satisfactorily 
all  the  work  of  a  family  without  assistance,  and  still 
retain  good  health  and  leisure  for  social,  intellectual  and 
esthetic  life?  Is  the  latter  possible  for  all  or  even  most 
of  the  earnest,  educated  housewives  of  today?  If  not, 
why  not?  Is  it  the  fault  of  the  individual  or  of  our 
domestic  system? 

You  can  contribute  something  toward  shedding  light 
upon  these  and  many  other  important  problems  by  a 
careful  study  of  the  schedule  enclosed.  All  information 
will,  of  course,  be  considered  confidential. 

If  you  are  not  in  a  position  as  head  of  a  household  to 
give  the  information  desired,  please  pass  on  the  schedule 
to  some  friend  whom  you  think  likely  to  be  interested. 
I  will  be  glad  to  have  the  names  of  any  persons  who 
would  be  interested  in  filling  out  a  schedule. 

Very  truly  yours, 
Temple  University, 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 

229 


APPENDIX  C 


APPENDIX  C 

COLLEGE  HALL 
19  Main  Avenue,  Ocean  Grove,  N.  J. 

A  UNIQUE  PLAN  will  be  carried  out  this  summer 
at  College  Hall,  Ocean  Grove,  to  run  the  hotel 
entirely  by  Temple  University  students  on  the  basis  of 
"summer  camp"  good-fellowship. 

College  Hall  is  one  block  from  the  boardwalk  on  Main 
Avenue,  one  of  the  finest  avenues  in  Ocean  Grove.  A 
good  view  of  the  sea  is  obtained  from  the  front  porch 
and  a  still  finer  view  from  the  cupola.  Bathing  grounds 
and  swimming  pool  are  near  by;  also  hot  and  cold  sea- 
water  baths. 

In  the  Auditorium,  seating  10,000  persons,  there  are 
inspiring  services  on  the  Sabbath ;  during  the  week,  con- 
certs and  select  motion  pictures  with  music  of  the  won- 
derful organ.  Each  morning  at  the  Temple  the  Young 
People's  Meeting  gives  an  hour  of  inspiration. 

Just  across  Wesley  Lake  is  Asbury  Park,  where  all  the 
usual  seashore  attractions  are  offered. 

Lakes  on  both  sides  of  Ocean  Grove  afford  boating 
and  canoeing,  while  a  twenty-minute  trolley  trip  brings 
one  to  beautiful  Deal  Lake  with  its  canoes  and  motor 
boats,  and  pine  woods  famous  for  picnic  suppers.  Half 
an  hour's  ride  southward  is  Shark  River  and  inexhaust- 
ible fun  in  crabbing;  sailing  may  also  be  enjoyed,  in 
water  shallow  enough  to  suit  the  most  timid. 

Add  to  this  that  nowhere  in  all  the  world  is  there  a 
finer  drive  than  that  to  Long  Branch,  through  miles  of 

233 


THE    HOUSEHOLD    BUDGET 

beautiful  summer  cottages,  including  Elberon,  where  our 
honored  President  will  spend  the  summer  at  "Shadow 
Lawn."  Miss  Margaret  Wilson  has  agreed  to  give  a 
concert  in  the  Auditorium  during  the  summer. 

Yacht  sails  daily  from  fishing  pier;  fishing  8  A.  M., 
sailing  at  2  P.  M. 

Public  tennis  courts  and  bowling  alleys. 

No  saloons. 

No  mosquitoes  or  malaria. 

At  College  Hall  graduates  in  Household  Science  will 
demonstrate  how  a  plain  home  table  can  be  served  with 
such  tastiness  as  to  lure  one  to  linger  longer.  In  place 
of  the  customary  service,  everything  will  be  attended  to 
by  the  deft  hands  of  well-trained  young  women. 

A  graduate  in  Household  Art  will  be  in  charge  of  the 
sewing  room,  attend  to  repairs,  etc. 

Mothers  with  children  may  have  a  real  rest  by  arrang- 
ing with  a  Kindergartner  to  take  the  young  folks  at  a 
moderate  rate  per  hour.  Older  children  (15  to  50!)  will 
be  taken  on  hikes,  given  lessons  in  swimming,  athletic 
exercises,  folk  games,  basketry  work,  etc.,  by  a  competent 
graduate  in  Physical  Training. 

A  woman  physician  will  be  at  the  Hall  over  week-ends 
for  consultation. 

Smoking  not  permitted  on  the  premises — the  boardwalk 
is  near. 

Ample  porches  on  first  and  second  floors.     Electric 
lights  in  each  room.     Plenty  of  light  and  air.    All  hair 
mattresses. 
The  purposes  of  this  plan  are: 

1     To  give  Temple  University  graduates  a  thorough 
practical  training  in  their  respective  fields. 

234 


APPENDIX  C 

2  To   assist   undergraduates   in   working   their   way 
through  college. 

3  To  give  a  higher  grade  of  service.     College  train- 
ing should  stand  for  this  to  prove  its  value. 

Students,    under    competent    management,    will    have 
charge  of  College  Hall,  June  15  to  September  15,  1916.1 


'Not  open  for  season  of  1917  on  account  of  the  war. 

235 


APPENDIX  D 


APPENDIX  D 
ECONOMISTS  AND  HOUSEHOLD  PRODUCTIVE  ACTIVITIES 

A  CURSORY  examination  of  the  following  works  of 
well-known  economists  revealed  no  references  of 
importance  to  the  household  activities  of  women: 
Malthus,  Thomas  R.,  "Essay  on  the  Principle  of  Popu- 
lation."   1798. 
Malthus,  Thomas  R.,  "Principles  of  Political  Economy." 

1820. 
Ricardo,  David,  "Principles  of  Political  Economy  and 

Taxation."     1817. 

Senior,  Nassau  William,  "Political  Economy,"     1836. 
Bastiat,  Frederic,  "Harmonies  ficonomiques."     1850. 
Marx,  Karl,  "Das  Capital."    Vol.  1,  1867.    Vol.  2,  1885. 

Vol.  3,  1895. 
Rogers,  J.  E.  Thorold,  "Manual  of  Political  Economy." 

1868. 
Jevons,   W.    Stanley,   "Theory   of    Political   Economy." 

1871. 

Cairnes,  J.  E.,  "Political  Economy."     1874. 
George,  Henry,  "Progress  and  Poverty."     1879. 
Sidgwick,    Henry,    "Principles   of    Political    Economy." 

1883. 
Walker,  Francis  A.,  "Political  Economy."    1883. 

Clark,  John  Bates,  "The  Philosophy  of  Wealth."     1887. 
Bohm-Bawerk,  Eugen  von,  "Positive  Theory  of  Capital." 
1889. 

239 


THE   HOUSEHOLD   BUDGET 

Wieser,  F.  von,  "Natural  Value."     1889. 
Pantaleoni,  Maffeo,  "Pure  Economics."     1889. 
Smart,   William,   "An    Introduction   to   the    Theory   of 
Value."    1891. 

Ely,  Richard  T.,  "Outlines  of  Economics."  1893.  (In 
the  1916  edition  three  budgetary  studies  are  referred 
to  and  tables  given  from  Engel,  Chapin  and  the 
U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor.  On  page  151  the  author 
says:  "The  work  of  the  housewife  and  the  services 
of  friendship  embody  utilities,  that  is,  satisfy  human 
wants,  just  as  do  money-making  activities,  but  they 
are  not  reported  in  terms  of  dollars  and  cents.") 

Nicholson,  J.  Shield,  "Principles  of  Political  Economy." 
Vol.  1,  1893.  Vol.  2,  1897.  Vol.  3,  1901.  (Vol.  3, 
page  334, — "the  employer  is  the  consumer  of  his 
liveried  servants.") 

Hadley,  Arthur  Twining,  "Economics."     18%. 

Bullock,  C.  J.,  "Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Economics." 
1897. 

Clark,  John  Bates,  "The  Distribution  of  Wealth."    1899. 
Fetter,  Frank  A.,  "Principles  of  Economics."     1904. 
Carver,  Thomas  N.,  "Distribution  of  Wealth."     1904. 

Seager,  Henry  R.,  "Introduction  to  Economics."  1904. 
(A  page  is  devoted  to  a  discussion  of  the  "Nutritive 
Value  of  Different  Foods."  On  page  72  the  term 
"domestic  economics"  occurs  in  a  statement  regard- 
ing making  consumption  economical.) 

Clark,  John  Bates,  "Essentials  of  Economic  Theory." 
1907. 

240 


APPENDIX  D 

Taussig,  F.  W.,  "Principles  of  Economics."  1911.  (Vol. 
1,  page  113,  "Even  in  the  modern  family,  there  is 
division  of  labor,  after  a  sort,  between  man  and 
wife.  But  commonly  we  consider  the  family  as  a 
unit,  and  think  of  the  housewife,  when  she  works 
for  husband  and  family,  as  working  for  that  of 
which  she  is  but  a  part.") 

Seager,  Henry  R.,  "Principles  of  Economics."  (A  new 
edition  of  the  "Introduction,"  with  considerable  new 
material  added.  The  attitude  toward  certain  prob- 
lems is  also  somewhat  modified.) 

Works  appearing  since  1913  have  not  been  examined 
nor  were  all  the  editions  of  the  various  books  mentioned 
above  included. 


241 


INDEX 


Accounts,  household  . .  69-70 
Advancement,  137,  138, 

149,  151-2,  156-9,  165,  168-9 

Alberti  182-7 

Amer.  Home  Economics 

Assoc 94 

Amount  of  household 

work    29-94 

Baking    40 

Bargains   23,  50 

Bastiat    239 

Beneficence  ....  149,  152-3,  166 

Beverages  139,  141 

Birth  rate   119-120 

Board  and   lodging,   in- 
cluded in  wages 111-2 

Bohm-Bawerk,  E 239 

Books  152,  165 

Bread    139-140 

Bread-mixer    82 

Bruere,    M.    B.    and   R. 

W 18,  135 

Budget,  analyzed, 

13,  135-154,  155-171 
Budget,    percentages   of 

expenditures    169 

Budgets,  13,  36,  99-100,  135-72 

Bullock,   C   J 240 

Butter   41,  139-140 

Buying   food,   etc.    (see 
Food,  purchase) 

Cairnes,  J.   E 239 

Candy    152,  169 

Capital 160 

Carey,  H.  C 193 

Carfare   (see  Transpor- 
tation) 

Carver,  T.   N 240 

Cereals   139-140 

Chapin,  R.  C 135 

Charity    152-3 

Charm    100,  162 

Children   .  35-  6 


Children,  care  of, 

62-3,  85,  121-2,  156-9 
Children,  oversight  of, 

64,  85,  166 
Choice,    production    not 

consumption    25-6 

Clark,  J.  B 24,  239,  240 

Cleaning  materials   ...149,  151 

Cleanliness  57-60 

Clothing,  care  of  56,  89 

Clothing,     expenditures, 

137-8,  142-148,  156-9,  164,  168 
Clothing,  laundry, 

49,  54-5,  80-2,  85 
Clothing,  making  ..51-2,  85,  89 
Clothing,  purchase, 

23,  50,  85,  89,  186-7 
Clothing,  repairing  ....  53,  85 

Coats   145-6 

Collars  142,  144,  147 

College  Hall, 

10,  125-32,  Appendix  C 
Consumer,     woman     as 

(see  Spender)    20,  196 

Consumption  202-3 

Consumption,      wasteful 

vs.  economical   195 

Conwell,  Russell  H 128 

Cooking   (see  Food) 
Co-operative  housekeep- 
ing    (see     Household 
work  a  gainful  occu- 
pation ;    and,    Special- 
ization   in    household 
work) 
Correspondence    152,  166 

Dependent,  woman  as, 
100-101,   118.-120,   176,    184-5 

Devine,  E.  T., 

18,  19,  25-6,  115,  189,  204 

Divorce   13,  102 

Domestics    (see   House- 
workers)     104 


243 


Domestic   Science    12,  93 

Dresses   145,  146 

Economists     on     house- 
hold  work, 

173-212,  Appendix  D 

Education  149,  152,  165 

Education   in   household 

science   93 

Eggs  139,  140 

Eight-hour  day 77-8,  130 

Ely,  R.  T 197-8,  205,240 

Equipment    (see   Labor- 
saving  machines) 
Exchange     value     of 
household  work, 

99,  102,  193,  197 
Extra    work    time    (see 
Overtime) 

Family 183 

Family,  normal    115,  136 

Fashion   179-180,  202-3 

Fetter,  F 25,  240 

Fireless   cooker    83 

Fisher,  LA 209 

Food,  cooking..  39-42,  85,  88-9 
Food,  dish  washing....  48,  85 
Food  expenditures, 

137-141,  156-9,  163,  166-7 

Food  inspector  

Food,  menus   40 

Food,  purchase, 

21-3,  37-8,  85-7,  186 

Food  serving   43-7,  85 

Frederick,    Mrs.    Chris- 
tine      44,  92 

Fruits  139,  141 

Furniture    and    furnish- 
ings   149,  151 

Gardening      as      house- 
work     75,  167 

George,  Henry  239 

Giddings,  F.  H 116 

Gifts  166,  171 

Gilman,    Charlotte    Per- 
kins   (Stetson), 

18,  27,  94,  103,  117,  175 

Gloves 142,  144,  145,  147 

Goods    11 

Goldmark,  Josephine   . .  107 

Hadley,  Arthur  T 240 

Handkerchiefs, 

142,  144,  145,  147 


Hats 142,  143,  145,  147 

Health   149,  152,  165 

Health,       as       affecting 

household  work   73-4 

Heat, 

149,  150,  159,  163,  165,  167 

Heating,   care   of    61 

Higher  life   151 

Homework    other    than 

housework    75-6 

Hosiery  ....   142,  143,  145,  147 

Hour,  work  by 105-6 

Hours,    working    67-71 

House,  care  of  ....  61,  85,  90 
House,  cleaning  ..57-60,  85,  90 

House,  rooms  in   58 

Household       economics, 

definition  of    11,  176 

Household       economics, 

education  in. ...  12,  93,  127-8 
Household  management, 

65,  85,  90,  156-9,  184-5 
Household  work  a  gain- 
ful occupation..  90-2,  113-123 
Household  work  as  pro- 
duction,    17-27,     188- 
192,    195,    197-8,    199- 

200,  206,  209 
Household   work,   value 

of  17,  95-114,  156-7 

Houseworker  (see  Serv- 
ants) 
Houseworker,   value   of 

work   155-7 

Housewife  as  producer    15-28 
Housewife,      value      of 
work  110-2,  155-7 

Ice    139,  141 

Income  ..153,  170-1,  209,  211-2 

Income,  national   198,211 

Insurance, 

153,  159,  163,  164,  168 
Interest 163,  164,  168 

Jevons,  W.   S 21,  239 

Journal   of   Home   Eco- 
nomics   94,  224 


Kingsley,   Chas. 


57 


Labor-saving  machines.     79-83 
Laundry  (see  Clothing), 

142,  144,  147 
Light  149,  150,  163,  165 


244 


Liquors   152,  169 

Loss   (deficit)...   154,  159,  162 


Recreation    ......  149,  152,  165 

Rent   (see  Shelter) 

T   ~  inn  o  Replacement  fund..  159,  160-161 

McCulloch,  J.  R  .......     190-2  Ricard     David  ........       239 

Maine,  wages  in  ......     104-7  Richards    Ellen  H     18   94    138 

Malthus,  T    R  .........       239  R  ;    E   Thorold.  .       239 

Management 

(see  Household)  Salmon,  Lucy  ....  94,  104,  108 

Marketing  .........  21-22,  37-8  153,  156,  157,  159 

Marshall,   Alfred,  Savings,    137,    138,    149, 

21,  135,  199-200  153,  156,  157,  159 

Marx,  Karl   ...........       239  Schedule,  household, 

Mason,  Otis  T  .........         94  33-4,  Appendix  A 

Meals,  purchased,  139,  141,  166  Seager,  Henry  R.,   11,   17,  26, 

Meats    ................  139-140  40,  103,  107,  123,  158,  162,  240-1 

Menial  work...  128,  130-1,  188  Seligman,  E.  R   A  .....       208 

Milk   .................  139,  140  Senior,  N.  W  .....  98,  193,  239 

Mill,  J.  S  ............  118,194  Servants     (see     House- 

Monopoly,    law    of,    ap-  worker),  104,  185,  188,  190-2 

plied  to  housework..  99-102  Servants,  wages  of  ____     104-9 

Monopoly,    law    of,    ap-  Servants,  work  of, 

plied  to  marriage  ....       102  188-192,  199-200 

More,  Louise  B  .......       135  Services  as  wealth, 

NeS  SC°"   -142-144   147  Services   f'JS&oS?'  * 
Necktes  ........   142,  144,  147  3j    m   199.200  205.6 

145,  ?  |e™'(«enePfood)32'  '*  ^ 

Sewing     (see    Clothing, 
Operation,  expenditures,  repairing) 

137,  138,  149-150  Shelter     (see     House), 
Overcoats  .......   142-3,  145-6         expenditures,    137,    138,    149, 

Overshoes  ....   142-3,  145,  147         150,  156,  157,  159,  164,  168,  171 

Overtime    ..............         72  Sherman,   H.   C  ....... 

„     j  ,-   .  irv>  o  Shirts    ................  142-143 

Pandolfim         .........     182-3  Sh       ......    M2    143    H5    147 

Pantaleom    M  ........         240  Shopping  ......   ...  .'.23-24,  50 

Paper,  daily.  ....  .....  152,   165  Sid  P^icf  Henr     ......       '239 

Parloa,  Maria   .........          12  skill  in  household  work    84-92 

Patten,   S.   N.,  QU;H-C  14=;    14fi 

35,  115,  162,  195-6,  210-1  ^rst    wimkm  .......       ' 

Pleasure  in  housework.     84-92  irt'  2Y  32  ^01-3   205-6,  240 

Preserving    ............         41  Smith    A^ 

Producer,  woman  as  .  .     15-28  log    lgg_9    m    20g 

Production    .     .....  ..  11  g     .  ,       durable       con. 


P^c^Lrvices  as,886192 

Profits   ............   159'  161-2 

Purchaser,     woman     as 

(see  Spender) 
Ravenhill  and   Schiff...        175 


Spender,       woman       as 

(see  Consumer),  12,  20-1,  202 
Spending  money,  152,  166,  169 
Steps,  saving  ..........  44 


Raw  materials  ........  159-160      Stetson  (see  Oilman) 

245 


Streightoff,   F.   H 99,  135 

Student  service, 

125-132,  Appendix  C 

Suits  142-3,  145-6 

Sweets    139,   141 

Taussig,  F.  W 241 

Taxes    159,  161 

Telephone, 

149,  151,  164,  166,  167,  168 
Temple  University   ...128,  136 

Thompson,  Maud   97 

Thompson,  Robert  Ellis       117 

Thrift   183-184 

Time   lost    73-4 

Transportation    150,  152 

Travel 152,  166,  168 

Umbrellas   ..142,  144,  145,  147 
Underwear   142-3,  145-6 

Vacuum  cleaner  80 

Value      of      household 

work 95-112 

Veblen,  T 25,  122,  207 


Vegetables  139-140 

Vegetarian    40,  70 

Wages  107-8,  149,  151 

Wages,  housewife's, 

97-103,  159,  161 

Wages,  houseworker's 
(servants'), 

104-9,  159,  161,  194 

Wages   of   management, 

159,  161 

Waists  145-6 

Waitress  (see  Food, 
serving) 

Walker,  F.  A 239 

Wieser,  F.  von 240 

Wife  supported  by  hus- 
band (see  Dependent) 

Woman  as  producer 
(see  Household  work 
as  production) 

Women  in  industry 209-211 

Xenophon....  18,  176,  181,  183 


246 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


:>. 

MAR  19  *939 

VLftrffilR* 

2yvjoi 

orcP  L° 

RtA->  * 
n  inCA 

JVJN  1  •  u°° 

1AM  1  o    100x1 

\IHIV  J.  0    l"O*f 

1 

! 

rec'd  circ.  MAR  1  4  ' 

984 

DM  LtZODB 

™y  i)  y7uu4 

LD  21-5m-l,  '39  (7053s7) 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


